Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Dorsal Reduction Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Nasal Patency and Aesthetic Outcomes by Rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales.

BACKGROUND

Dorsal preservation techniques have been preferred and gained popularity in recent years. The current study compares the effects of dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction rhinoplasty on nasal patency and aesthetic outcomes by using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and rhinomanometry. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction techniques with rhinomanometry.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of 34 patients who underwent rhinoplasty between January 2021-June 2022. The patients were randomly selected preoperatively and divided into two groups as structural rhinoplasty (SR) and preservation rhinoplasty (PR). Nasal Obstruction and Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) scales and rhinomanometric evaluation were performed preoperatively, at 3rd month and 12th month postoperatively.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients (10 female, 9 male) were in SR group, 15 patients (7 female, 8 male) were in PR group. There was not significant difference in terms of age and gender between groups. In both groups, NOSE, SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C results were found to be significantly lower at postoperative 3rd and 12th month compared to preoperatively (p < 0.001 for the entire SR group, p = 0.001 for the entire PR group). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of PROMs. Mean total nasal volume (TNV) at 12th month were statistically higher than preoperative value in PR group (p = 0.031). Also there was no significant difference in SR group and between groups in terms of rhinomanometry results.

CONCLUSION

Dorsal preservation with pushdown technique provides good functional and aesthetic results comparable with structural rhinoplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . A well-designed prospective clinical trial.