Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:40:05.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in nasal aesthetics following nasal bone manipulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2007

S C L Leong
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK
M Abdelkader
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK
P S White*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr P S White, Senior Lecturer in Rhinology, Department of Otolaryngology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland, UK. Fax: (+44) 1382 632 816 E-mail: paulw@tuht.scot.nhs.uk

Abstract

Nasal bone fractures are the commonest type of bony facial injury causing aesthetic deformity. The aim of this study was to identify the effect of nasal trauma and fracture manipulation on the aesthetic proportions of the nose, by comparing pre- and post-treatment nasal aesthetics. Thirty-two patients (26 men and 6 women) underwent aesthetic assessment prior to treatment of the injury by closed nasal manipulation, 7 to 10 days after the initial injury. Standard facial aesthetic photographic assessments were performed prior to and following manipulation. Assessment involved measurement of standard nasal aesthetic parameters. In the nasal trauma cohort, the main anomalies in nasal aesthetics were nasal deviation and differences in the nasal aesthetic profile. Nasal fracture manipulation successfully reduced deviation from an average of 35° pre-manipulation to an average of 9° post-manipulation.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Rohrich, RJ, Adams, WP. Nasal fracture management: minimising secondary deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106:266–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Hutchinson, I, Magennis, P, Shepard, JP, Brown, AE. The BAOMS United Kingdom survey of facial injuries. Part 1: aetiology and the association with alcohol consumption. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;36:414Google Scholar
3Magennis, P, Shepherd, JP, Hutchinson, I, Brown, AE. Trends in facial injury. BMJ 1998;316:325–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Mondin, V, Rinaldo, A, Ferlito, A. Management of nasal bone fractures. Am J Otolaryngol 2005;26:181–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Green, KM. Reduction of nasal fractures under local anaesthetic. Rhinology 2001;39:43–6Google ScholarPubMed
6Hern, J, Hamann, J, Tostevin, P, Rowe-Jones, J, Hinton, A. Assessing psychological morbidity in patients with nasal deformity using the CORE questionnaire. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:359–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Girotto, JA, MacKenzie, E, Fowler, C, Redett, R, Robertson, B, Manson, PN. Long-term physical impairment and functional outcomes after complex facial fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:312–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Newton, CH, White, PS. Nasal fracture manipulation with intravenous sedation. Is it an acceptable and effective technique? Rhinology 1998;36:114–16Google Scholar
9Powell, NB. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Yearbook, 1993;687701Google Scholar
10Leong, SCL, White, PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Aesth Recon Surg 2006;59:248–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Illum, P. Long-term results after treatment of nasal fractures. J Laryngol Otol 1986;100:273–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Staffel, JG. Optimizing treatment of nasal fractures. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1709–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed