PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(03): 302-305
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722955
Original Research

Evaluation of the Effect of Conventional Rhinoplasty with Autospreader Flap and Let-Down Technique on Nasal Functions

Burak Mustafa Taş 
1   Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat, Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hastanesi, Kırıkkale, Turkey
,
Burak Erden
2   Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat, Mersin Province Training and Research Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Let-down technique, in which high septal strip resection is performed, and conventional rhinoplasty using autospreader flaps were compared regarding nasal functions with Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) quality-of-life scale questionnaires. A total of 54 patients who were included in the study were divided into two groups: group 1 (autospreader group; n = 27) and group 2 (let-down group; n = 27). Open technical septorhinoplasty operation using an autospreader flap was performed in group 1. Let-down rhinoplasty was applied in group 2. NOSE and SNOT-22 scales were filled for the groups in the preoperative and postoperative periods and were compared. Postoperative values were found to be significantly lower than preoperative values in both groups (p < 0.001). When the groups were compared in between, no significant difference was seen according to the scales (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups regarding age and gender. Although there was no significant difference between the two techniques, both NOSE and SNOT-22 quality-of-life scales have shown improvement both in conventional rhinoplasty with autospreader flap and let-down technique.

Keywords

autospreader flap - Let-down technique - NOSE - rhinoplasty - SNOT-22


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Februar 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Saban Y, Daniel RK, Polselli R, Trapasso M, Palhazi P. Dorsal preservation: the push-down technique reassessed. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 117-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Apaydin F. Nasal valve surgery. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (02) 179-191
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Byrd HS, Meade RA, Gonyon Jr DL. Using the autospreader flap in primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (06) 1897-1902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Patel PN, Abdelwahab M, Most SP. A review and modification of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty techniques. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (02) 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tuncel U, Aydogdu O. The probable reasons for dorsal hump problems following let-down/push-down rhinoplasty and solution proposals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 378e-385e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Soler ZM, Jones R, Le P. et al. Sino-Nasal outcome test-22 outcomes after sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (03) 581-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT. Development and validation of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (02) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Strazdins E, Nie YF, Ramli R. et al. Association between mental health status and patient satisfaction with the functional outcomes of rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (04) 284-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grymer LF, Gregers-Petersen C, Baymler Pedersen H. Influence of lateral osteotomies in the dimensions of the nasal cavity. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (06) 936-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Abdelwahab MA, Neves CA, Patel PN, Most SP. Impact of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump resection on the internal nasal valve: a quantitative radiological study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (03) 879-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Manavbaşı YI, Başaran I. The role of upper lateral cartilage in dorsal reconstruction after hump excision: section 1. Spreader flap modification with asymmetric mattress suture and extension of the spreading effect by cartilage graft. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2011; 35 (04) 487-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kovacevic M, Wurm J. Spreader flaps for middle vault contour and stabilization. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hussein WK, Elwany S, Montaser M. Modified autospreader flap for nasal valve support: utilizing the spring effect of the upper lateral cartilage. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (02) 497-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eren SB, Tugrul S, Ozucer B, Meric A, Ozturan O. Autospreading spring flap technique for reconstruction of the middle vault. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2014; 38 (02) 322-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kosins AM, Daniel RK. Decision making in preservation rhinoplasty: a 100 case series with one-year follow-up. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (01) 34-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar