Outcome Analysis of Spreader Graft Vs Autospreader Flaps in Patients with Deviated Nose Undergoing Open Septorhinoplasty
Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Department of ENT, Guwahati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam
Description
Introduction: The spreader graft is a valuable tool in any rhinoplasty surgeon’s armamentarium. There are innumerable studies, demonstrating its value in the restoration of nasal dorsal aesthetics, helping in the maintaining of patency of the internal nasal valve, and also maintaining the straightened position of the corrected dorsal cartilaginous septum in crooked noses. This study compares the insertion of spreader grafts vs auto spreader flaps in patients undergoing open septorhinoplasty. Objective: To compare the efficacy of mid- vault reconstruction technique (spreader graft vs autospreader flap) in open septorhinoplasty cases done for crooked nose. Design: A prospective observational study of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty, whose mid vault was reconstructed using (1) spreader grafts, or (2) auto spreader flaps. Preoperative and postoperative results were evaluated using a detailed questionnaire and diagnostic nasal endoscopy. Results: Ten patients completed preoperative and postoperative evaluation. No complications occurred in any of the patients. 7 patients were inserted with spreader grafts while only 3 patients were treated with autospreader flaps. In terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes in the first category, 5 and 6 patients were highly satisfied, 1 and nil was partially satisfied and 1 and 1 patients were not satisfied respectively. For the second category 1 and 2 patients were highly satisfied, nil and nil patients were partially satisfied and nil and 1 patients were not satisfied respectively. Conclusions: Midvault reconstruction using the spreader graft or auto spreader flaps helps prevent postoperative nasal obstruction. On comparing both these techniques it was seen that there was no significant difference in the aesthetic and functional outcome.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: The spreader graft is a valuable tool in any rhinoplasty surgeon’s armamentarium. There are innumerable studies, demonstrating its value in the restoration of nasal dorsal aesthetics, helping in the maintaining of patency of the internal nasal valve, and also maintaining the straightened position of the corrected dorsal cartilaginous septum in crooked noses. This study compares the insertion of spreader grafts vs auto spreader flaps in patients undergoing open septorhinoplasty. Objective: To compare the efficacy of mid- vault reconstruction technique (spreader graft vs autospreader flap) in open septorhinoplasty cases done for crooked nose. Design: A prospective observational study of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty, whose mid vault was reconstructed using (1) spreader grafts, or (2) auto spreader flaps. Preoperative and postoperative results were evaluated using a detailed questionnaire and diagnostic nasal endoscopy. Results: Ten patients completed preoperative and postoperative evaluation. No complications occurred in any of the patients. 7 patients were inserted with spreader grafts while only 3 patients were treated with autospreader flaps. In terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes in the first category, 5 and 6 patients were highly satisfied, 1 and nil was partially satisfied and 1 and 1 patients were not satisfied respectively. For the second category 1 and 2 patients were highly satisfied, nil and nil patients were partially satisfied and nil and 1 patients were not satisfied respectively. Conclusions: Midvault reconstruction using the spreader graft or auto spreader flaps helps prevent postoperative nasal obstruction. On comparing both these techniques it was seen that there was no significant difference in the aesthetic and functional outcome.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article166.pdf
Files
(320.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:83e08838457b8b013436ce02a33f92fd
|
320.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-07-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue8,Article166.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Rohrich R.J., Gunter J.P., Deuber M.A., and Adams W.P., The deviated nose: optimizing results using a simplified classification and algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 110: 6. 2. Dingman R.O., Natvig P., The deviated nose. Clin Plast Surg. 1977; 4: 145-152. 3. Ramirez O.M., Pozner N.J., Treatment by separation of its components and internal cartilage spling. Clin plast surg. 1996; 392: 327-32. 4. Stucker F.J., Management of the scoliotic nose. Laryngoscope. 1982; 92(2): 128-34. 5. Sheen JH. Spreader graft: a method of reconstructing the roof of the middle nasal vault following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984; 73:230–7. 6. Byrd H.S., Salomon J., Flood J., Correction of the crooked nose. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 102 (6): 2148-57. 7. Seyhan A., Ozden S., Gungor M., Celik D., A double-layered, stepped spreader graft for the deviated nose. Ann Plast Surg. 2009; 62 (6): 604-8. 8. Zojaji R, Keshavarzmanesh M, Arshadi HR, Mazloum Farsi Baf M, Esmaeelzadeh S. Quality of life in patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg. 2014; 30:593–6. 9. Jang Y.J., Sinha V., Spreader graft in septorhinoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007; 59 (2): 100-2. 10. Oliveira P.W., Pezato R., Gregório L.C., Deviated nose correction by using the spreader graft in the convex side. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed). 2006; 72 (6): 760- 3. 11. Giacomini P., Lanciani R., Di Girolamo S., Ferraro S., Ottaviani F., Caudal septal deviation correction by interlocked graft technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2010; 65 (3): 280- 4. 12. Faris C, Koury E, Kothari P, Frosh A. Functional rhinoplasty with batten and spreader grafts for correction of internal nasal valve incompetence. Rhinology. 2006; 44:114–7. 13. Byrd HS, Meade RA, Gonyon Jr DL. Using the autospreader flap in primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 119:1897–902. 14. Yoo S, Most SP. Nasal airway preservation using the autospreader technique: analysis of outcomes using a disease-specific quality-oflife instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011; 13:231–3. 15. Yoo S, Most SP. Nasal airway preservation using the autospreader technique: analysis of outcomes using a disease-specific quality-oflife instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011; 13:231–3. 16. Pepper JP, Baker SR. the autospreader flap in reduction rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011; 13(3):172 17. Hussein WK, Elwany S, Montaser M. Modified autospreader flap for nasal valve support: utilizing the spring effect of the upper lateral cartilage. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 272:497–504 18. Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, Michel MA. Computed tomography technique for evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2004; 6(4):240–243 19. Beriat K, Karadag ̆D. The value of computed tomography in evaluation of internal nasal valve angle. Med J Trakya Univ. 2010; 27(3):270–274.