DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20183397

Retrospective study of analysis of 100 cases of septorhinoplasty by open versus closed rhinoplasty approach

Vilas R. Kirdak, Sambhaji G. Chintale, Sonali P. Jatale, Kaleem A. Shaikh

Abstract


Background: Rhinoplasty is one of the great and most common cosmetic surgeries performed in current era for different type of reasons one main is for cosmetic and aesthetic one. Aim of this study is to know the functional and aesthetic outcome of septorhinoplasty by open and closed septorhinoplasty approach by using Nasal Obstructive Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) score and ROE (Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation) score. To study the advantages of open rhinoplasty over closed rhinoplasty.

Methods: This is retrospective study carried out in our hospital. In this study all types of cases we divided them in to two groups. Group A is made for the cases which are operated by open rhinoplasty approach and group B for the cases witch are operated by closed septorhinoplasty approach.  

Results: In our study group of 100 patients, the mean age was 30 in male 24 yr. in female. In our study of 100 cases 50 cases operated by open rhinoplasty approach and 50 patients by endonasal (closed) approach. The postoperative functional state compared with the preoperative state (p<0.05). Preoperatively average NOSE score in Group A was seen to be 70.40±13.98 with postoperative average score to be 7.00±7.55 (p<0.05). The preoperatively average NOSE score in Group B was 68.60±13.26 with postoperative average score of 15.70±9.04 (p<0.05).

Conclusions: Open approach gives better functional results than closed approach. Open approach gives better aesthetic results than closed approach. Open approach septorhinoplasty can correct most of the deformities of the external nose along with any severity of septal deviation better than the closed approach.

 


Keywords


Septorhinoplasty, Closed, Open, Aesthetics cosmetic

Full Text:

PDF

References


Dyan SH. Evolving-Techniques-in-Rhinoplasty. Facial Plastic Surg. 2007;23:63-9.

Foda HMT. External rhinoplasty: a critical analysis of 500 cases. J Laryngol Andotol. 2003;117(6):473–7.

Tellioğlu AT, Vargel I, Cavuşoğlu T, Cimen K. Simultaneous open rhinoplasty and alar base excision for secondary cases. Aesthetic plastic Surg. 2005;29(3):151–5.

Mohamed WS, El-shazly MM, El-sonbaty MA, Eloteify MM. Objective Versus Subjective Assessment. Rhinoplasty. 2013;37(1):73–9.

Cingi C, Songu M, BAL C. Outcome’s research in rhinoplasty: body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(4):263–7.

Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O. Cosmetics and function: quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(2):254–9.

Chauhan N, Warner J, Adamson P a. Adolescent rhinoplasty: challenges and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plastic Surg. 2010;34(4):510–6.

Love day OE, Hakeem EB, Lekara DT. A Software Tool for Facial Analysis. RJASET. 2012;4(6):551-6.

Ferraro GA, Rossano F, D'Andrea F. Self-perception and self-esteem of patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Aesth Plast Surg. 2005;29:184-9.

Janis JE, Rorich RJ. Rhinoplasty. In: Grabb and Smith's Plastic Surgery. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2007: 511-532.

Tebbetts JB. Open and closed rhinoplasty (minus the versus): analyzing processes. Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26(4):456-9.

Rorich RJ, Adams Jr. WP. The boxy nasal tip: classification and management based on alar cartilage suturing techniques. Plast Surg. 2001;107(7):1849-63.

Janis JE, Trussler A, Ghavami A, Marin V, Rohrich RJ, Gunter JP. Lower lateral crural turnover flap in open rhinoplasty. Plast Surg. 2009;123(6):1830-41.

Islam S, Yousuf A. Comparative analyses of rhinoplasty open vs endonasal approach- Our experience. IJIR. 2016;2(2):386-93.

Hellings PW, Trenité GJN. Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:985-9.

Hussein WKA, Baker SR, Ismail AS, Alwany S. Crooked nose: The symmetric face. EJENTAS. 2015;16(3):237-42.