Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 41, Issue 7, pp 823–831 | Cite as

Geometric morphometric contribution to septal deviation analysis

  • Thomas RadulescoEmail author
  • Djamel Hazbri
  • Patrick Dessi
  • Pascal Adalian
  • Justin Michel
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The nasal septum presents inter-individual conformational variations. The objectives of this study were to establish a validated protocol for nasal septum analysis using geometric morphometrics (GM) to establish a classification of septal deviations (SD).

Methods

This was a retrospective study including two groups of patients: patients operated on by septoplasty (SD group) and patients without nasal obstruction (control group). The 3D segmentation model was extracted from CT scans. Thirty landmarks were defined on the nasal septum and validated by MANOVA Procrustes. Using a clusterization process, the septum was classified to reflect its different conformations. Nasal resistances were compared between the two groups.

Results

Fifty scans of patients with SD were included. The percentage of variability due to measurement error was 7.9% across all landmarks. We identified two clusters for the SD group. Using GM, conformation of cluster 1 (S-shaped) and cluster 2 (C-shaped) was visualized and identified. There was a statistically significant difference regarding nasal resistance between each cluster in the SD group compared with the control group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This work is a first step in SD exploration, contributing to a clearer appreciation of the interactions between nasal conformation and function. An SD classification was devised based on a reliable and reproducible statistical analysis. Enhanced understanding of conformation/function interactions will improve the diagnosis and treatment of nasal obstruction.

Keywords

Nasal septum Nasal obstruction Septal deviation Geometric morphometrics Landmarks Cluster 

Notes

Author contributions

TR: main author. DH, PD: data collection. PA: statistics. JM: study design

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Baumann I, Baumann H (2007) A new classification of septal deviations. Rhinology 45(3):220–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bookstein F (1982) Foundations of morphometrics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 13:451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bookstein F (1993) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. J Classif 10(1):133–136Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bookstein F (1997) Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1:225–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buyukertan M, Keklikoglu N, Kokten G (2003) A morphometric consideration of nasal septal deviations by people with paranasal complaints: a computed tomography study. Rhinology 41:21–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cottle M, Loring G, Fischer Gaynon I (1958) The maxilla–premaxilla approach to extensive nasal septum surgery. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 68:301–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goergen M, Holton N, Grünheid T (2017) Morphological interaction between the nasal septum and nasofacial skeleton during human ontogeny. J Anat 230(5):689–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grymer L, Melsen B (1989) The morphology of the nasal-septum in identical-twins. Laryngoscope 99(6):642–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guyomarc’h P, Santos F, Dutailly B, Desbarats P, Bou C, Coqueugniot H (2012) Three-dimensional computer-assisted craniometrics: a comparison of the uncertainty in measurement induced by surface reconstruction performed by two computer programs. Forensic Sci Int 219(1–3):221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyuron B (1999) A practical classification of septonasal deviation and an effective guide to septal surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):2202–2210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heimer D (1983) Sleep apnea syndrome treated by repair of deviated nasal septum. Chest J 84(2):184Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kendall DG (1984) Shape manifold, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull Lond Math Soc 16:81–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim J, Cho JH, Kim SW, Kim BG, Lee DC, Kim SW (2010) Anatomical variation of the nasal septum: correlation among septal components. Clin Anat 23(8):945–949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krajina Z, Bumber Z (1982) Contribution to nasal-septum deformities. Acta Oto-Laryngol 93(3–4):291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michel J, Paganelli A, Varoquaux A, Piercecchi-Marti MD, Adalian P, Leonetti G, Dessi P (2015) Determination of sex: interest of frontal sinus 3D reconstructions. J Forensic Sci 60(2):269–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miles B, Petrisor D, Kao H, Finn R, Throckmorton G (2007) Anatomical variation of the nasal septum: analysis of 57 cadaver specimens. Otolaryng Head Neck 136:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mladina R, Skitarelic N, Poje G, Subaric M (2015) Clinical implications of nasal septal deformities. Balk Med J 32:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreddu E, Puymerail L, Michel J, Achache M, Dessi P, Adalian P (2013) Morphometric measurements and sexual dimorphism of the piriform aperture in adults. Surg Radiol Anat 35(10):917–924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oxnard C, O’Higgins P (2009) Biology clearly needs morphometrics. Does morphometrics need biology? Biol Theory 4(1):84–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao J, Kumar E, Babu K, Chowdary V, Singh J, Rangamani S (2005) Classification of nasal septal deviations—relation to sinonasal pathology. Indian J Otolaryngol 57(3):199Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roithmann R, Cole P, Chapnik J, Shpirer I, Hoffstein V, Zamel N (1995) Acoustic rhinometry in the evaluation of nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope 105(3):275–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teixeira J, Certal V, Chang ET, Camacho M (2016) Nasal septal deviations: a systematic review of classification systems. Plast Surg Int 2016:7089123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomasi M (1997) The deviated nose. Classification and treatment. A propos of 100 cases. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 114(1–2):41–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zeng W, Chen G, Ju R, Yin H, Tian W, Tang W (2018) The combined application of database and three-dimensional image registration technology in the restoration of total nose defect. J Craniofac Surg 29(5):e484–e487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verhoeven S, Schmelzer B (2016) Type and severity of septal deviation are not related with the degree of subjective nasal obstruction. Rhinology 54(4):355–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wee JH (2012) Classification and prevalence of nasal septal deformity in Koreans according to two classification systems. Acta Otolaryngol 132(1):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryAPHM, La Conception University HospitalMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, IUSTIMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADESMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations