Introduction: Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging plastic surgeries in which achieving the desired outcome requires high techniques as well as a great aesthetic vision. The aim of the current study is to compare the functional and aesthetical priority of the unilateral placement of the spreader graft in the concave side of the nose over the convex side.
Material and Methods: A descriptive study was conducted on 282 volunteer patients for primary rhinoplasty during from 2011 to 2013. Nasal examination and desirable lab data’s photography of face and nose was taken. Preoperative nasal deviation from midline of face was evaluated with the guide of preoperative photo. Then it was compared with intraoperative finding and nasal septal deviation evaluated with type and number of cartilage graft .
Results: A total of 282 of patient consisting of 195 females and 87 males with a age range of 17-51 years old underwent primary rhinoplasty and were evaluated. Most operations performed on patients who are under 30 years old and 69.1% of patients were females. Two hundred and eighty cases were done through open rhinoplasty and 2 case closed rhinoplasty. One hundred and ninety one patients (67.7%) for the cause of aesthetic and 91 patients (32.3%) for the cause of aesthetic plus functional came for primary rhinoplasty. Amount of pre-operative nasal deviation degree was (71.5%) and intra operative septal deviation was (91.5%), which septorhinoplasty was mostly performed (91.5%). Fifty nine patients (20.9%) had mild deviation and 146 (51.5%) had moderate and 77 (27.3%) patients had sever deviation.
Conclusion: Success in rhinoplasty needs to pay attention to the patients desire as well as careful nasal analysis and evaluation of its subunits together. More than 99% of patients had an open septorhinoplasty that mostly had moderate nasal deviation (51.8%). These patients were treated with spreader graft (unilateral or bilateral) ± scoring or batten graft usage of different surgical techniques was like other scientific and reliable centers in world.
Mathes, Stephen j, Hentz Vincent R, Graber RP ,WALL S .H , kaufman D: plastic surgery : Nasal deviation 2006 ,473-510 .Vol II
Neligan P.C, Warren R j, Ahmad j, Rohrich R J: Nasal deviation, plastic reconstructive surgery, 2013 :18:418,432-453 .vol II
Daniel RK: rhinoplasty: septal nasal deviation . Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 2010 ;184-224
Guyuron B: Rhinoplasty: plastic reconstructive surgery. 2012 -301 -340 nasal deviation
Aziz zadeh B, Murphy MR ,Numa W ,Johnson jrc M : master techniques in rhinoplasty : correcting nasal deviation . Plastic Reconstructive Surgery .2011 -381-382-383-407
Tardy, jr ME: Rhinoplasty:septal nose deviation. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery. 1996-364-365-366-368-370
Gruber R, Freeman B, Hsu C , el .Nasal deviation. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 2009 ;123:716
Chavez AD, Dagam p , Koch Rj , Newman JP : Legal issues of computer imaging in plastic surgery : a primer . Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 1997;100 :1601-1608
Tebbett JB : shaping and positioning the nasal tip without structural disruption a new , systematic approach . Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 1994;94:61-77
Guyron B: Nasal osteotomy and airway changes . Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 1998;102:856-860
Becker DG, Mclaughin RB Jr, Joevner LA, Mang A: The lateral osteotomy in rhinoplasty: clinical and radiographic rationale for osteotome selection . Plast Reconstr Surg .2000;105:1806-1816
Padoran I. External approach to rhinoplasty (decortications) surg ORL lug . 1966:3-4 :354-362
Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ. Management of the deviated nose the importance of septal reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 1988;1:43-55