Spare Roof Technique Versus Component Dorsal Hump Reduction: A Randomized Prospective Study in 250 Primary Rhinoplasties, Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes
| Autor: | José Amarante, Miguel Ferreira, Cecília Almeida e Sousa, Diogo Oliveira e Carmo, Nuno Dourado, Aureliano Costa Fertuzinhos, Jorge M. Santos, Mariline Santos |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Longitudinal study
medicine.medical_specialty Esthetics Visual analogue scale medicine.medical_treatment 030230 surgery Nose Preoperative care law.invention Rhinoplasty 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law medicine Humans Longitudinal Studies Prospective Studies 030223 otorhinolaryngology Prospective cohort study Reduction (orthopedic surgery) Nasal Septum business.industry General Medicine Surgery medicine.anatomical_structure business |
| Zdroj: | Aesthetic surgery journal. 41(3) |
| ISSN: | 1527-330X |
| Popis: | Background Most Caucasian aesthetic rhinoplasty patients complain about having a noticeable hump in profile view. Taking the integrity of the middle vault into consideration, there are 2 ways to dehump a nose: the structured technique and the preservation technique. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic and functional outcomes of 2 reduction rhinoplasty techniques. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, interventional, and longitudinal study on 250 patients randomly divided into 2 groups: the component dorsal hump reduction group (CDRg) (n = 125) and the spare roof technique group (SRTg) (n = 125). We utilized the Utrecht Questionnaire for Outcome Assessment in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. Patients answered the questionnaire before the surgery, and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. In addition, we utilized a visual analog scale (VAS) to score nasal patency for each side. Results Analyses of the preoperative and postoperative aesthetic VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups, from 3.66 to 7.00 (at 3 months) to 7.35 (at 12 months) in the CDRg, and from 3.81 to 8.14 (at 3 months) to 8.45 (at 12 months) in the SRTg. Analyses of postoperative means of aesthetic VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups over time. However, aesthetic improvement was higher in the SRTg than in the CDRg at both 3 (P < 0.001) and 12 months (P < 0.001) postsurgery. Analyses of the mean functional VAS scores showed a significant improvement with both techniques, with a better result for the SRTg. Conclusions The SRT is a reliable technique that can help deliver consistently better aesthetic and functional results than CDR for reduction rhinoplasty in Caucasian patients with a dorsal hump. Level of Evidence: 2 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|