Search

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate functional and aesthetic patient-reported outcomes using validated metrics after component dorsal hump reduction (DHR) with spreader graft placement, which have not been previously reported., Study Design: Prospective cohort study., Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care medical center. Participants underwent septorhinoplasty (SRP) with spreader graft placement with cosmetic, component DHR (cosmetic DHR), or SRP with spreader graft placement without dorsal hump reduction (noncosmetic, non-DHR). The Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale and the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Nose, Nostrils, and Social Functioning scales were administered to patients preoperatively and postoperatively (at 2, 4, 6, and/or 12 months). Pre- and postoperative NOSE and FACE-Q scores were compared., Results: A total of 226 patients underwent SRP with spreader graft placement; 113 (50.0%) with cosmetic DHR and 113 (50.0%) noncosmetic, non-DHR (control). Patients who completed the NOSE and FACE-Q surveys preoperatively and at least at one postoperative time point were included. Both cohorts had a statistically and clinically significant improvement in NOSE and FACE-Q scores. There were similar improvements in NOSE scores in both cohorts. Postoperative FACE-Q scores were higher in the cosmetic DHR cohort despite lower preoperative FACE-Q scores when compared to the control cohort., Conclusions: Although there are multiple techniques for DHR, component DHR with spreader graft placement has long been considered the standard. Therefore, it is important to note the significant postoperative cosmetic and functional improvements reported by patients who have undergone this procedure to compare to newer techniques as they evolve., Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:2157-2161, 2022., (© 2022 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objective: To compare the patient-reported outcomes among patients with nasal obstruction undergoing two rhinoplasty techniques to a control group. Methods: Prospective longitudinal study in a university-based tertiary care medical center. All patients undergoing functional septorhinoplasty for correction of lateral wall insufficiency between October 2015 and March 2019 were included; n  = 704, mean age (standard deviation) 39.0 (15.4) years, 52.7% females. Patients completed the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and FACE-Q subscales pre- and postoperatively. Patients were divided into three cohorts: spreader and lateral crural strut (LCS) grafts ( n  = 141), spreader and alar rim (AR) grafts ( n  = 104), and the control spreader grafts alone ( n  = 218). Results: The median NOSE scores at last postoperative visit were improved from baseline ( p  < 0.001) for all cohorts. The FACE-Q nasal satisfaction median scores also improved postoperatively in all cohorts, AR, LCS, and spreader, respectively ( p  = 0.001, p  < 0.001, and p  < 0.0001). Conclusions: There was no detectable difference in the improved subjective nasal function, nor adverse aesthetic outcomes in the patients with lateral wall insufficiency treated with functional rhinoplasty techniques in this study.