This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Quantitative Changes Following Rhinoplasty

Mark A. Petroff, MD; E. Gaylon McCollough, MD; David Hom, MD; Jack R. Anderson, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117(7):783-788.

Abstract
• Fifty-one patients were enrolled in a study and underwent primary rhinoplasty. Serial nasal tip projection measurements were made preoperatively, intraoperatively, and 6 months postoperatively. Actual changes in measured nasal tip projection were evaluated with respect to preoperative goals and specific procedures used to accomplish these goals in the nasal tip. Several useful observations are made from these data: (1) The most important components of nasal tip projection in the postsurgical nasal tip are the medial crura, their attachment to the caudal septum, and the presence of additional cartilaginous grafts placed between the medial crura or beneath the crural feet. (2) Actual nasal tip projection will decrease postoperatively, unless measures to increase the length and strength of the medial crural segment are taken (ie, McCollough-modified Goldman tip procedure, cartilage struts, plumping grafts, etc), regardless of the preoperative goal. (3) The double-dome unit procedure is effective in narrowing the wide or bulbous lobule but alone does not permanently increase nasal tip projection. (4) Conservative tip procedures, such as a complete strip, result in decreased nasal tip projection and should therefore be used in patients in whom retrodisplacement of the nasal tip is the intended result.

(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117:783-788)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland (Dr Petroff); the McCollough Plastic Surgery Clinic, Birmingham, Ala (Dr McCollough); the Department of Otolaryngology, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Minnesota Hospitals, Minneapolis (Dr Hom); and the Department of Otolaryngology, Tulane University and Louisiana State University, New Orleans (Dr Anderson).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication March 6, 1991.

Presented at the annual fall meeting of the American Academy of Facial and Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, San Diego, Calif, September 8, 1990.

Reprint requests to 9155 SW Barnes Rd, Suite 931, Portland, OR 97225 (Dr Petroff).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Revision Rhinoplasty of Asian Noses: Analysis and Treatment
Park et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:146-155.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Objective Assessment of Tip Projection and the Nasolabial Angle in Rhinoplasty
Sporri et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:295-298.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correction of Severe Caudal Deflections With a Cartilage "Plating" Rigid Fixation Graft
Dyer and Kang
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:973-978.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Lateral Crural Steal and Lateral Crural Overlay: An Objective Evaluation
Foda and Kridel
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1365-1370.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ethmoid Bone Sandwich Grafting for Caudal Septal Defects
Metzinger et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:1121-1125.
ABSTRACT