COMPARISON BETWEEN DORSAL PRESERVATION AND HUMP REDUCTION IN PATIENTS WITH DORSAL PROMINENCE WHO UNDERWENT RHINOPLASTY

S SAINCH; S ASLAM; A ASGHAR; S MAQBOOL; F SIDDIQUI; S AZIZ

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1418

Authors

S SAINCH Departmant Of ENT, PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
S ASLAM Departmant Of ENT, Combined Military Hospital Sialkot, Pakistan
A ASGHAR Departmant Of ENT, PNS Hafeez Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
S MAQBOOL Departmant Of ENT, PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
F SIDDIQUI Departmant Of ENT, PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan
S AZIZ Departmant Of ENT, PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1418

Keywords:

• Rhinoplasty Nasal Bone Nasal Cartilages Surgical Procedures, Operative Aesthetic Surgery

Abstract

Among the various nasal deformities addressed through rhinoplasty, dorsal prominence often characterized by a hump or bump on the bridge of the nose is a frequent concern for patients. Objectives: The main objective of the study is to find the comparison between dorsal preservation and hump reduction in patients with dorsal prominence who underwent rhinoplasty. Methods: This comparative observational study was conducted at PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi during December 2022 to May 2023. Data were collected from 30 patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Data were collected from patient medical records and postoperative follow-ups. Demographical data related to age, gender, and baseline nasal characteristics were recorded. Results: Group A (Dorsal Preservation) comprised 15 patients with an average age of 28.4± 6.3 years, including 9 females and 6 males. They had undergone an average of 2.01 previous rhinoplasties and presented with a preoperative hump size of 3.2± 0.5mm. Group B (Hump Reduction), also consisting of 15 patients with an average age of 29.1± 7.2 years, included 10 females and 5 males. This group had an average of 3.11 previous rhinoplasties and a preoperative hump size of 3.3± 0.7mm. Surgical durations were 150± 15min for Group A and 140±20min for Group B, indicating slightly longer procedures for dorsal preservation compared to hump reduction. Conclusion: Dorsal preservation represents a significant advancement in rhinoplasty, offering superior aesthetic results, high patient satisfaction, and favorable long-term outcomes compared to traditional hump reduction techniques.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Cottle MH (1954) Nasal roof repair and hump removal. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 60(4): 408–14 (Cited in: Saban, Y., et al., Dorsal preservation: the push down technique reassessed. Aesthetic Surg. J., 2018. 38(2): p. 117–131)

Gilman RH (2020) Invited discussion on: “impact of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump resection on the internal nasal valve: a quantitative radiologic study.” Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(3):888–890

Alan, M. A., Kahraman, M. E., Yüksel, F., & Yücel, A. (2023). Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Dorsal Reduction Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Nasal Patency and Aesthetic Outcomes by Rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales. Aesthetic plastic surgery, 47(2), 728–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03151-8

Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP (2018) The 10-item standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 20(1):37–42

Karahatay S, Taşlı H, Karakoç Ö, Aydın Ü, Türker T (2018) Reliability and validity of the Turkish nose obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale. Turkish J Med Sci. 48(2):212–216

Vogt K, Bachmann-Harildstad G, Lintermann A, Nechyporenko A, Peters F, Wernecke KD (2018) The new agreement of the international RIGA consensus conference on nasal airway function tests. Rhinology 56(2):133–143

Hassanpour SE, Heidari A, Moosavizadeh SM, Tarahomi MR, Goljanian A, Tavakoli S (2016) Comparison of aesthetic and functional outcomes of spreader graft and autospreader flap in rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 5(2):133–138

Saban Y (2021) Commentary on: expanding ındications for dorsal preservation rhinoplasty with cartilage conversion techniques. Aesthet Surg J 41(2):185–188

Abdelwahab MA, Neves CA, Patel PN, Most SP (2020) Impact of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump resection on the internal nasal valve: a quantitative radiological study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(3):879–887

Taş BM, Erden B (2021) Comparison of nasal functional outcomes of let down rhinoplasty and open technical rhinoplasty using spreader graft. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278(2):371–377

Qaradaxi KA, Mohammed AA. Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes of No-Dissection Nasal Dorsum Using Subdorsal Septal Excision in Preservation Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Oct 1;152(4):596e-602e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010335. Epub 2023 Feb 24. PMID: 36827472; PMCID: PMC10521777.

Kosins AM, Daniel RK. Decision making in preservation rhinoplasty: a 100 case series with one-year follow-up. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:34–48.

Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP. The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20:37–42

van Zijl FV, Mokkink LB, Haagsma JA, Datema FR. Evaluation of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty: a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019;21:152–162.

Abdelwahab M, Saltychev M, Elkholy NA, Elsisi H, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Arabic validation of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcome survey for Arabic-speaking rhinoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:673e–675e.

Stergiou G, Tremp M, Finocchi V, Saban Y. Functional and radiological assessment after preservation rhinoplasty—a clinical study. In Vivo 2020;34:2659–2665.

Levin M, Ziai H, Roskies M. Patient satisfaction following structural versus preservation rhinoplasty: a systematic review. Facial Plast Surg. 2020;36:670–678.

Ferreira MG, Santos M, E Carmo DO, et al.. Spare roof technique versus component dorsal hump reduction: a randomized prospective study in 250 primary rhinoplasties, aesthetic and functional outcomes. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:288–300

Patel, P. N., Kandathil, C. K., Abdelhamid, A. S., Buba, C. M., & Most, S. P. (2023). Matched Cohort Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Hump Resection Rhinoplasty. Aesthetic plastic surgery, 47(3), 1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03156-3

Wells, M. W., DeLeonibus, A., Barzallo, D., Chang, I. A., Swanson, M., & Guyuron, B. (2023). Exploring the Resurgence of the Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Literature Review. Aesthetic plastic surgery, 47(4), 1488–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03345-8