Septorhinoplasty is particularly challenging among revision surgeries for cleft sequelae. The challenge of cleft septorhinoplasty is mainly due to the complex anatomy of nose, deformity of each of its components and the difficulty and lack of clarity in surgical management. From 2014 to 2017, 26 patients with cleft lip nose deformity were operated by the same cleft team. The study was conducted to assess the improvement in nasal airway and appearance following secondary rhinoplasty with extracorporeal septoplasty. Post operatively each patient was evaluated using the standard modified rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire, a validated instrument that aids in stratifying patients according to their subjective response. All patients reported great relief of nasal obstruction and improved breathing. More than 80% of our patients were satisfied with improved aesthetics and reported better self-confidence. Secondary cleft rhinoplasty with extracorporeal septoplasty surgery significantly improves the cosmesis and nasal airway opening, subsequently giving them improved self-confidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Authors would like to thank Dr. Aarathi Krishnan for statistical guidance.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and there was no funding or grants involved.
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.
Gubisch W (2006) Twenty-five years’ experience with extracorporeal septoplasty. Fac Plast Surg 22(4):230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang Z, Wang P, Zhang Y, Shen G (2017) Nasal airway evaluation after Le Fort I osteotomy combined with septoplasty in patients with cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg 28(1):207–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrilla C, Artuso A, Gallus R, Galli J, Paludetti G (2013) The role of septal surgery in cosmetic rhinoplasty. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 33(3):146–153PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Fac Plast Surg 3(3):198–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer AR, Robinson S, Cadier M (2017) Prospective patient—related outcome evaluation of secondary cleft rhinoplasty using a validated questionnaire. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 54(4):436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posnick JC, Tompson B (1993) Modification of the maxillary Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft-orthognathic surgery: the bilateral cleft lip and palate deformity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51(1):2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh T, Dedhia R, Del Toro D, Tollefson T (2017) Cleft septorhinoplasty: form and function. Fac Plast Surg Clin N Am 25(2):223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih CW, Sykes JM (2002) Correction of the cleft-lip nasal deformity. Fac Plast Surg 18(4):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vass G, Mohos G, Bere Z, Ivan L, Varga J, Piffko J et al (2016) Secondary correction of nasal deformities in cleft lip and palate patients: surgical technique and outcome evaluation. Head Face Med 12(1):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Most SP (2006) Anterior septal reconstruction: outcomes after a modified extracorporeal septoplasty technique. Arch Fac Plast Surg 8(3):202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar