Skip to main content
Log in

Open Rhinoplasty: Influence of Incisions, Alar Resection, and Columellar Strut on Final Appearance of the Tip

  • Original Article
  • Aesthetic
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to analyze scientifically the results of a rhinoplasty is a difficult task because of the multiplicity of surgical procedures and the subjective nature of the nose’s beauty. Nevertheless, we wanted to evaluate open rhinoplasty by relying on objective and subjective criteria.

Methods

From 2004 to 2011, a total of 155 patients underwent open septorhinoplasty at our hospital. After excluding patients lost to follow-up and those who underwent orthognathic surgery, 55 patients were included in the study. The evaluation was based on the clinical record, the standardized photographs, and the consultation of control. We studied in particular the nasolabial angle (NLA), the Goode ratio (projection/length of nose), and patient satisfaction using the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation form.

Results

The columella–transalar incision tended to close the NLA (p = 0.001) and lowered the Goode ratio (p = 0.01), in contrast to the Réthi incision. The resection of the alar cartilages logically induced closure of the NLA (p = 0.02) and a decrease of nose projection (p = 0.001), whereas the use of a columellar strut induced a projection increase (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Despite the existence of unavoidable measures bias, we confirmed a number of assumptions that had never been demonstrated statistically. Furthermore, we found that the incision used could affect the final result of a rhinoplasty.

Level of Evidence IV

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson JR, Johnson CM Jr, Adamson P (1982) Open rhinoplasty: an assessment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 90:272–274

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alsarraf R, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3(3):198–201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergman S, Feldman LS, Barkun JS (2006) Evaluating surgical outcomes. Surg Clin North Am 86:129–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baud C (1978) Harmonie d un visage: étude scientifique de la beauté, appliquée en chirurgie esthétique. Maloine, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  5. Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Taieb J, Opolon P (2002) Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem? Ann Intern Med 136:888–895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abbou R, Beck M, Zemirline A, Facca S, Liverneaux P (2011) Techniques of peripheral nerves repair: evolution of the literature from 1950 to 2010. Chir Main 30(36):363–367 (article in French)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fitzgerald JP, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1992) An evaluation of the nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 102:328–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mahajan AY, Marcus BC (2009) Analysis of patient-determined preoperative computer imaging. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11(15):290–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B (2012) Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:759–764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goode R (1984) Personal communications. In: Powell N, Humphrey B (eds) Proportions of the aesthetic face. Thieme Medical Publishing, New York, p 72

    Google Scholar 

  11. Crumley R, Lanser M (1988) Quantitative analysis of nasal tip projection. Laryngoscope 98:202–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sporri S, Simmen D, Briner HR, Jones N (2004) Objective assessment of tip projection and the nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 6:295–298 discussion 299–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patrick DL (1993) Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rhee JS, McMullin BT (2008) Measuring outcomes in facial plastic surgery: a decade of progress. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16:387–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alsarraf R (2000) Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 24(23):192–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Faidiga GB, Silveira F, Lago T, Leite MG, Anselmo-Lima WT (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76(74):437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baryza MJ (1995) The Vancouver scar scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Rehabil 16(15):535–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilk A, Herman D, Rodier-Bruant C, Kolbe R, Chekkoury H, Lesage F (1992) Mini-forum: rhinoplasty by external approach. Collumello-trans-alar approach of open rhinoplasty: advantages. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 37(5):479–487 (article in French)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandao KV (2012) Normal values for the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78:76–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Polselli R, Saban Y (2007) Artistic anatomy of the nose: proposals for a simplified project of rhinoplasty. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 128(4):239–242 (article in French)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Powell N, Humphries B (1984) Proportions of the aesthetic face. Thieme Medical Publishing, New York, p 72

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hazani R, Rao AJ, Wilhelmi BJ (2013) Caudal resection of the upper lateral cartilages and its measured effect on tip rotation. Ann Plast Surg 71(5):450–452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akkus AM, Guneren E (2013) Comparison of the effects of columellar strut and septal extension grafts for tip support in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(4):666–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carron MA, Pastorek NJ (2013) Measured gain in projection with the extended columellar strut-tip graft in endonasal rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 15(13):187–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Abbou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbou, R., Bruant-Rodier, C., Wilk, A. et al. Open Rhinoplasty: Influence of Incisions, Alar Resection, and Columellar Strut on Final Appearance of the Tip. Aesth Plast Surg 38, 1077–1082 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0395-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0395-2

Keywords

Navigation