Advertisement

Rhinoplasty in the deviated nose: patterns of recurrence and role of facial asymmetry

  • Yves L. J. GoffartEmail author
  • Sarah Remacle
Original Paper
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Various hypothesis concerning recurrence of nasal deviation have been proposed in the literature but are not clearly demonstrated.

Methods

This retrospective study including 50 consecutive patients with a non-traumatic deviated was conducted to determine the pattern of nasal axis stabilization after rhinoplasty of the deviated nose on the basis of three anthropometric measurements: median face axis (MFA), interpupillary meridian axis (IMA), and scoliosis angle (SA). We studied possible mechanisms associated with progressive re-deviation occurring over time even to a very slight degree in many patients, and we reviewed the mechanisms associated with asymmetry of the face and nose. The hypothesis regarding recurrences and possible modification of surgical procedures are discussed. We retrospectively examined the pattern of recurrence of deviation over time in a consecutive series of non-traumatic patients undergoing primary esthetic or functional rhinoplasty. Patients were followed at 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year.

Results

Of the patients, 92% (46/50) had an asymmetric face after comparing two anthropometric angles: MFA and IMA. Gradual re-deviation occurred in almost every patient, although very slightly, as MFA shifted from 4.1° ± 3.1 preoperatively to 1.0° ± 1.1 at 2 weeks, 1.1° ± 1.5 at 3 months, and 1.7° ± 2 at 1 year. IMA shifted from 4.7° ± 3.3 preoperatively to 0.9° ± 1.7 at 2 weeks, 1.5° ± 1.9 at 3 months, and 1.6° ± 2.8 at 1 year. SA shifted from 171.7° ± 6.2 preoperatively to 179.7° ± 1.4 at 2 weeks, 178.7° ± 3 at 3 months, and 177.8° ± 3 at 1 year. Stabilization was observed after 3 months to 1 year.

Conclusions

Facial asymmetry is present in most patients with a deviated nose. Nasal deviation often recurs, even after adequate surgery. The re-deviation pattern is progressive over the first few months after surgery. Midfacial hypotrophy may play a role in the formation of bony foundation defects of the nose and dynamic and asymmetric soft tissue forces over time. For the “facial envelope theory,” designing a surgical approach that would test this hypothesis is needed.

Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Crooked nose Deviated nose Facial asymmetry Outcomes Rhinoplasty 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Ethical approval retrospective studies

Accepted by Belgian ethical committee.

Conflict of interest

Goffart Y., Remacle S. declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Dayan SH, Arkins JP (2012) The subliminal difference: treating from an evolutionary perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(1):189e–190eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zaidel DW, Cohen JA (2005) The face, beauty, and symmetry: perceiving asymmetry in beautiful faces. Intern J Neurosci 115:1165–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boccieri A (2013) The crooked nose. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 33(3):163–168Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cottle M, Loring R (1948) Surgery of the nasal septum; new operative procedures and indications. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 57(3):705–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrd HS, Salomon J, Flood J (1998) Correction of the crooked nose. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:2148–2157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courtiss EH (1978) Septorhinoplasty of the traumatically deformed nose. Ann Plast Surg 1:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartman C, Holton N, Miller S, Yokley T, Marshall S, Srinivasan S, Southard T (2016) Nasal septal deviation and facial skeletal asymmetries. Anat Rec 299(3):295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chatrath P, De Cordova J, Nouraei SA, Ahmed J, Saleh HA (2007) Objective assessment of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 9(3):184–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carvalho B, Ballin A, Becker R, Berger C, Hurtado J, Mocellin M (2012) Rhinoplasty and facial asymmetry: analysis of subjective and anthropometric factors in the Caucasian nose. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 16(4):445–451Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yi JS, Jang YJ (2015) Frequency and characteristics of facial asymmetry in patients with deviated noses. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 17(4):265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hafezi F, Naghibzadeh B, Nouhi A, Yavari P (2010) Asymmetric facial growth and deviated nose: a new concept. Ann Plast Surg 64(1):47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim YM, Rha KS, Weissman JD, Hwang PH, Most SP (2011) Correlation of asymmetric facial growth with deviated nasal septum. Laryngoscope 121(6):1144–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munroe IR (1994) Hemifacial macrosomia: the skeletal correction. Oper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg 1:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott JH (1954) The growth of the human face. Proc R Soc Med 47(2):91–100Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baume LJ, Derichsweiler H (1961) Response of condylar growth cartilage to indiced stresses. Science 4:217–223Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wealthall RJ, Herring SW (2006) Endochondral ossification of the mouse nasal septum. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 288(11):1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takahashi R (1987) The formation of the nasal septum and the etiology of septal deformity. The concept of evolutionary paradox. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 443:1–160Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rönning O, Kantomaa T (1985) Experimental nasal septum deviation in the rat. Eur J Orthod 7:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holton NE, Yokley TR, Figueroa A (2012) Nasal septal and craniofacial form in European- and African-derived populations. J Anat 221(3):263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thiemann N, Keil V, Roy U (2017) In vivo facial soft tissue depths of a modern adult population from Germany. Int J Legal Med 131(5):1455–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hollier L, Kim J, Grayson BH, McCarthy JG (2000) Congenital muscular torticollis and the associated craniofacial changes. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goffart Y (2010) Morphing in rhinoplasty: predictive accuracy and reasons for use. B-ENT 6(Suppl 15):13–19Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Erdem T, Ozturan O (2008) Objective measurement of the deviated nose and a review of surgical techniques for correction. Rhinology 46:56–61Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Okur E, Yildirim I, Aydogan B, Akif Kilic M (2004) Outcome of surgery for crooked nose: an objective method of evaluation. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ellis DA, Gilbert RW (1991) Analysis and correction of the crooked nose. J Otolaryngol 20(1):14–18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Choi JW, Kim MJ, Jeong WS One-piece nasal osteotomy for the correction of a centrally deviated nose [published online 2018 Aug 10]. Aesthetic Plast Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1207-x
  27. 27.
    Tugrul S, Dogan R, Kocak I, Ozturan O (2015) Asymmetrically pressing nasal splint for crooked nose deformity. J Craniofac Surg 26(1):180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sykes JM, Kim J, Shaye D, Boccieri A (2011) The importance of the nasal septum in the deviated nose. Facial Plast Surg 27(5):413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goffart Y, Karelle S, Daele J (2015) Free spreader grafts in rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 38(5):355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gruber R, Nahai F, Bogdan M, Friedman G (2005) Changing the convexity and concavity of nasal cartilages and cartilage grafts with horizontal mattress sutures: part II. Clinical results. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(2):595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gubish W (1995) The extracorporeal septum plasty: a technique to correct difficult nasal deformities. Palst Reconstr Surg 95(4):672–682Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yao F, Lawson W, West Reich RW (2009) Effect of midfacial asymmetry on nasal axis deviation: indications for use of the subalar graft. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11(3):157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Westreich RW, Courtland HW, Nasser P, Jepsen K, Lawson W (2007) Defining nasal cartilage elasticity: biomechanical testing of the tripod theory based on a cantilevered model. Arch Facial Plast Surg 9(4):264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Westreich RW, Burstein D, Fraser M (2011) The effect of facial asymmetry on nasal deviation. Facial Plast Surg. 27(5):397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rohrich R, Villanueva N, Small K, Pezeshk R (2017) Implications of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ENT and Head Neck/MaxilloFacial SurgeryCHR CitadelleLiegeBelgium

Personalised recommendations