Journal archive · Septum, valve and airway · Open versus closed approach · 2017
Effectiveness of caudal septal extension graft application in endonasal septoplasty
Karadavut Y, Akyıldız I, Karadaş H, Dinç AE, Tulacı G, Tastan E.
In the archive as a landmark paper: the core sweep runs 2011–2026, and this one is here because the history of rhinoplasty rests on it · cited on caudal septum.
Abstract
Introduction: Septal deviation is a common disease seen in daily otorhinolaryngology practice and septoplasty is a commonly performed surgical procedure. Caudal septum deviation is also a challenging pathology for ear, nose, and throat specialists. Many techniques are defined for caudal septal deviation.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal septal extension graft (CSEG) application in patients who underwent endonasal septoplasty for a short and deviated nasal septum.
Methods: Forty patients with nasal septal deviation, short nasal septum, and weak nasal tip support who underwent endonasal septoplasty with or without CSEG placement between August 2012 and June 2013 were enrolled in this study. Twenty patients underwent endonasal septoplasty with CSEG placement. The rest of the group, who rejected auricular or costal cartilage harvest for CSEG placement, underwent only endonasal septoplasty without any additional intervention. Using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaires, pre- and post-operative acoustic rhinometer measurements were evaluated to assess the effect of CESG placement on nasal obstruction.
Results: In the control group, preoperative and postoperative minimal cross-sectional areas (MCA1) were 0.44±0.10cm2 and 0.60±0.11cm2, respectively (p<0.001). In the study group, pre- and postoperative MCA1 values were 0.45±0.16cm2 and 0.67±0.16cm2, respectively (p<0.01). In the control group, the nasal cavity volume (VOL1) value was 1.71±0.21mL preoperatively and 1.94±0.17mL postoperatively (p<0.001). In the study group, pre- and postoperative VOL1s were 1.72±0.15mL and 1.97±0.12mL, respectively (p<0.001). Statistical analysis of postoperative MCA1 and VOL1 values in the study and the control groups could not detect any significant intergroup difference (p=0.093 and 0.432, respectively). In the study group, mean nasolabial angles were 78.15±4.26° and 90.70±2.38°, respectively (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Endonasal septoplasty with CESG placement is an effective surgical procedure with minimal complication rate for subjects who have a deviated, short nasal septum and weak nasal tip support.
Introdução: Desvio septal é doença comum no cotidiano da prática otorrinolaringológica, e a septoplastia é procedimento cirúrgico comumente realizado. Desvio caudal do septo nasal é também uma condição desafiadora para os otorrinolaringologistas. São muitas as técnicas definidas para desvio caudal do septo nasal.
Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia da aplicação de enxerto de extensão septal caudal (EESC) em pacientes que passaram por septoplastia endonasal devido a septo nasal curto e com desvio.
Método: Foram recrutados para o estudo, 40 pacientes com desvio de septo nasal, septo nasal curto e fraca sustentação da ponta do nariz, tratados com septoplastia endonasal com ou sem a aplicação de EESC, entre agosto de 2012 e junho de 2013. Ao todo, 20 pacientes foram tratados com septoplastia endonasal com aplicação de EESC. O restante do grupo, que rejeitou coleta de cartilagem auricular ou costal para a aplicação de EESC, foi tratado apenas com septoplastia endonasal, sem qualquer outra intervenção. Com a aplicação dos questionários NOSE (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, Avaliação dos Sintomas de Obstrução Nasal) e ROE (Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation, Avaliação dos Desfechos da Rinoplastia), as mensurações pré e pós-operatórias com o rinômetro acústico foram obtidas com o objetivo de avaliar o efeito da aplicação de EESC na obstrução nasal.
Resultados: No grupo controle, as áreas de secção transversal mínima (ASTM1) antes e depois da operação foram 0,44 ± 0,10 cm2 e 0,60 ± 0,11 cm2, respectivamente (p < 0,001). No grupo de estudo, os valores antes e depois da operação para ASTM1 foram 0,45 ± 0,16 cm2 e 0,67 ± 0,16 cm2, respectivamente (p < 0,01). No grupo controle, o valor para os volumes da cavidade nasal (VOL1) foi 1,71 ± 0,21 mL no pré-operatório e 1,94 ± 0,17 mL no pós-operatório (p < 0,001). No grupo de estudo, os VOL1 antes e depois da operação foram 1,72 ± 0,15 mL e 1,97 ± 0,12 mL, respectivamente (p < 0,001). A análise estatística dos valores pós-operatórios para ASTM1 e VOL1 nos grupos de estudo e controle não permitiu a detecção de qualquer diferença intergrupos (p = 0,093 e 0,432, respectivamente). No grupo de estudo e no grupo controle, os ângulos nasolabiais médios foram 78,15 ± 4,26° e 90,70 ± 2,38°, respectivamente (p < 0,001).
Conclusão: A septoplastia endonasal com aplicação de EESC é um procedimento cirúrgico efetivo, com mínimo percentual de complicações para pacientes que se apresentam com septo nasal curto e com desvio e com fraca sustentação da ponta do nariz.
Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.
Septum, valve and airway
Every rhinoplasty is a breathing operation whether it intends to be or not: the septum holds the nose up as well as dividing it, and the narrowest part of the whole airway is the internal valve the surgeon is standing over.
Open versus closed approach
Whether the surgeon opens the nose through a small incision across the columella or works entirely through the nostrils has been argued in print since 1973, was put on facing pages of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery by Jack Gunter and Jack Sheen in 1997, and was finally pooled in 2025: across twenty studies and 1,067 patients there is no significant difference in what patients report, in breathing, in complications or in swelling.
Related papers
Same topic, 2017.
- ASJ Use of the "Septal T" as a Spacer and Conformer for a Properly Contoured Nasal Tip in RhinoplastyRobotti E, Choc IS, Jaber O2017PMID 27277275
- APS Columellar Scar Perception in Open Rhinoplasty. Interplay of Scar Awareness, Body Cathexis and Patient SatisfactionYağmur Ç, Ak S, Engin MS et al.2017PMID 28008458Summary
- APS 2017PMID 28032151Summary
- CO A systematic review of the surgical techniques for the treatment of internal nasal valve collapse: where do we stand?Goudakos JK, Fishman JM, Patel K2017PMID 27119792Abstract
- EAO Comparison on effectiveness of trans-septal suturing versus nasal packing after septoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysisWang WW, Dong BC2017PMID 28917002Abstract
- FPS Auricular Composite Grafting in Functional RhinoplastyRao N, Toriumi DM2017PMID 28753714
- FPS Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures in Columellar Incision Closure in Rhinoplasty and Their Effects to Postoperative ScarKilavuz AE, Bayram AA, Serin GM2017PMID 29195248
- FPS Natural History of Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale following Functional RhinoplastyKandathil CK, Moubayed SP, Chanasriyotin C et al.2017PMID 28962063