The outcome of V vs. S shaped nasal deformity in preservation rhinoplasty; A comparative study

State of the Evidence for Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

“…38 Complete preservation of all three components with the subdorsal septal approach has also resulted in significant improvement postoperatively for both V-and S-shaped nasal dorsum deformities, with obstruction improving more in the S-shaped group. 34 Patel et al also provided support for the use of the subdorsal strip method with or without functional rhinoplasty. 30,32 In 22 patients, VAS-F and SCHNOS-O did not significantly change following cosmetic preservation rhinoplasty alone.…”

“…1,2,8,10,11,[14][15][16][17]20,33,35,37,39,[45][46][47][48] Overall, the DPR techniques are reported to have a complication rate ranging from 0 to 25.80% with the majority of reported complications being minor. 1,9,10,12,13,[16][17][18][23][24][25][26][27]30,34,35,37,39,40,44,46 Reported postoperative dorsal hump recurrence rates ranged from 0 to 36.9% with the most dorsal hump recurrence occurring following the classical septum pyramidal adjustment and repositioning (SPAR) approach in complex rhinoplasty cases. 1,2,7,13,[15][16][17][18][20]…”

“…Please see the soft-tissue preservation group included in ►Table 3 for all reference details. 1,7,10,12,17,18,27,28,34,35,41,[45][46][47][49][50][51] No studies included in this category directly compare preservation techniques to conventional structural rhinoplasty. The highest level of evidence is available for the subdorsal septal approach proposed by Qaradaxi et al 34 The goal of this technique is nasal hump reduction with minimal dissection of the soft-tissue envelope of the nasal dorsum, which encompasses all three preservation techniques well.…”

“…1,7,10,12,17,18,27,28,34,35,41,[45][46][47][49][50][51] No studies included in this category directly compare preservation techniques to conventional structural rhinoplasty. The highest level of evidence is available for the subdorsal septal approach proposed by Qaradaxi et al 34 The goal of this technique is nasal hump reduction with minimal dissection of the soft-tissue envelope of the nasal dorsum, which encompasses all three preservation techniques well. 34 In 113 prospectively analyzed patients, there was a significant improvement in overall SCHNOS-O/C scores following the use of this comprehensive preservation technique (p < 0.001).…”

“…Please see the lateral crural preservation group included in ►Table 4 for all reference details. 1,10,18,25,34,46, To our knowledge, there are no references that directly compare lateral crural preservation techniques to conventional rhinoplasty. The highest level of evidence (level II) is currently available for LCS, LCO, and TING techniques.…”