Comparative study of continuous lateral osteotomy and microperforating osteotomy in patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty

Diego Sherlon Pizzamiglio; Cezar Augusto Sarraf Berger

doi:10.7162/S1809-97772012000300013

International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, Table of Contents

Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 16(03): 382-386
DOI: 10.7162/S1809-97772012000300013

Original Article

Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Comparative study of continuous lateral osteotomy and microperforating osteotomy in patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty

Authors

Diego Sherlon Pizzamiglio

¹Otorhinolaringologist - Medical Hospital IPO.
Cezar Augusto Sarraf Berger

²Master in Surgical. Voluntary Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Federal University of Parana. Otorinolaringologista Medical Hospital IPO.

Abstract

Summary

Introduction: Lateral osteotomies play an important role in rhinoplasty and can be performed with different techniques.

Objective: To compare the results of narrowing of the nasal dorsum and base through 2 types of lateral osteotomy: continuous and microperforating.

Method: We selected 74 patients undergoing rhinoplasty: 37 patients underwent lateral continuous osteotomy and the other 37 underwent microperforating osteotomy, all performed by the same surgeon. We analyzed frontal photography from the pre- and post-operative (6 months) periods, evaluating the width of the nasal dorsum and base. This was a retrospective study.

Results and Conclusion: Using Student's t-test, statistical analysis concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the post-operative narrowing of the nasal dorsum and base following both osteotomy techniques, and there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 techniques.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - osteotomy - photography

Full Text

References

References
1 Brain DJ. The early history of rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 1993; 9: 81-88
2 Dieffenbach JF. Der Aether gegen den Schmerz. Berlon, Germany: Hirschwald; 1847
3 Roe JO. The deformity termed “pug nose”and its correction, by a simple operation . [reprint published ins Plast Reconstr Surg. 1970, 45:78] Med Rec 1887; 31: 621
4 Joseph J. Die Hypertrophie der starren Nase: Nasenplastik und sonstige gesichtsplastik über smammaplastik und einige weitere Operationen aus dem gebiete der ausseren Korperplastik. Leipzig, Germany. Kabitzsch: 1931.
5 Webster RC, Davidson TM, Smith RC. Curved lateral osteotomy for airway protection in rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1997; 103: 454-8
6 Trady Jr ME, Denneny JC. Micro-osteotomies in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 1984; 1: 137
7 Gryskiewicxz JM, Gruskiewicz KM. Nasal osteotomies: a clinical comparison os the perforating mehods versus the continuous technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (5) 1445-58
8 Rohrich RJ, Minolli JJ, Adams WP, Hollier LH. The lateral nasal osteotomiy in rhinoplasty: an anatominc endoscopic comparison of the external versus the internal approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (5) 1309-12
9 Kuran I, Ozcan H, Usta A, Bas L. Comparison of four differente types os osteotomes for lateral osteotomy: A cadaver study. Aesthetic Plast. Surg 1996; 10: 323
10 Harshbarger RJ, Sullivan PK. Lateral nasal osteotomies: Implications of bony thickness on fracture patterns. Ann. Plast. Surg 1999; 42: 365
11 Ford CN, Battaglia DG, Gentry IR. Preservation of periosteal attachment in lateral osteotomy. Ann Plast. Surg 1984; 13: 107
12 Kortbus MJ, Ham J, Fechner F, Constantinides M. Quantitative analysis of lateral osteomomies in rhinoplasty. Arc Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (6) 369-73
13 Neto SC, Junior JFM, Martins RHG, Costa SS. Tratado de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial. Segunda Edição. São Paulo: Editora Roca; 2011. , Vol. III, pp. 469–88