0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Analysis of Outcomes After Functional Rhinoplasty Using a Disease-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument FREE

Sam P. Most, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Correspondence: Sam P. Most, MD, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Cosmetic Surgery Center, 4242 Roosevelt Way NE, Box 354716, Seattle, WA 98105 (smost@ohns.stanford.edu).


Author Affiliation: Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Cosmetic Surgery Center, Seattle.


Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8(5):306-309. doi:10.1001/archfaci.8.5.306.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To measure the efficacy of functional rhinoplasty techniques with a validated quality-of-life instrument.

Design  Prospective observational outcomes study of patients with severe nasal obstruction owing to septal deviation, internal or external valve collapse, and turbinate hypertrophy who subsequently underwent functional rhinoplasty. Preoperative and postoperative evaluations were performed using the Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation scale.

Results  Forty-one patients completed preoperative and postoperative evaluations. No complications occurred. There was a significant improvement in mean Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation score postoperatively for the entire cohort (P<.01). Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation scores were also examined based on the procedure performed, such as spreader grafting, septoplasty, external valve suspension, and turbinectomy. Each subgroup also demonstrated airway improvement.

Conclusions  Functional rhinoplasty techniques are effective in improving nasal airway function as measured by a patient-based, disease-specific, quality-of-life instrument. The specific techniques considered to treat nasal obstruction can be tailored to address the areas of concern, including septal deviation, internal or external valve collapse, and turbinate hypertrophy.

Figures in this Article

Nasal obstruction is one of the most common patient reports in otolaryngology and facial plastic surgery practices. Septal deviation and turbinate hypertrophy are common findings; thus, septoplasty and turbinate modification are common procedures in this setting. In patients with mild to moderate septal deviation, standard septoplasty is often adequate to improve the nasal airway. In some instances, such as severe nasal obstruction or nasal obstruction refractory to standard septoplasty, more comprehensive evaluation and treatment are required.

Internal valve insufficiency is caused variably by a narrow angle between the upper lateral cartilage and the septum, deviation of the septum, or enlargement of the anterior portion of the inferior turbinate. The traditional technique used to address internal valve narrowing has been the spreader graft.1-3 External valve insufficiency is caused by a weakened vestibular nasal wall, which collapses on inspiration.4 Structures responsible include the lower lateral cartilage and fibrofatty or fibromuscular tissue complex of the ala. Techniques used to address external valve collapse include batten grafting, lateral crural strut grafts, and, more recently, suturing of the lower lateral cartilage to the orbital rim.5-7 Septoplasty and turbinate reduction are often used in conjunction with these procedures.

Several studies have attempted to measure outcome after septoplasty or rhinoplasty, or both, using quantitative techniques such as rhinomanometry.8-12 A more recent study has used patient-based outcome measures.13 In 2005, a prospective examination of a small group of patients demonstrated improved quality of life (QOL) after functional rhinoplasty.14 We prospectively examined a larger group of patients. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics of patients undergoing specific functional rhinoplasty procedures also were studied.

To evaluate the functional effectiveness of these surgical techniques, a prospective outcomes evaluation was performed. Functional outcomes were measured using the Nasal Obstructive Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) scale, a validated and disease-specific QOL instrument designed for use in nasal obstruction.15-16

STUDY DESIGN

The study was conducted at the University of Washington Cosmetic Surgery Center, Seattle, with approval of the university Human Subjects Committee. The study hypothesis was that functional rhinoplasty improves disease-specific QOL (eg, nasal obstruction symptoms) measured postoperatively. As part of the same questionnaire, patients were asked to indicate the severity of their nasal obstruction on a visual, linear scale (Figure). This was then converted to a numerical score from 0 to 10, with 10 representing the most severe obstructive symptoms.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Nasal Obstructive Symptoms Evaluation scale. This questionnaire was given to patients preoperatively and postoperatively (see “Methods” section).

Graphic Jump Location
PATIENT SELECTION

Patients seen in consultation because of nasal obstruction were evaluated by me. Patients who had symptoms of nasal obstruction for at least 1 year that were the result of an identifiable anatomical cause such as septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, internal valve collapse, or external valve collapse were included in the study. Previous rhinoplasty or septoplasty did not exclude patients from consideration. Further inclusion criteria were failure of medical management, no history of nasal trauma or surgery within 1 year, and age 18 years or older.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All patients completed the disease-specific QOL instrument for nasal obstruction, the NOSE scale, and the linear symptom evaluation scale. Patients were asked to be seen 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively; however, patients unable to attend on a specific date were seen at their convenience. Statistical analysis was undertaken using a 1- or 2-tailed t test, as required.

Forty-one patients were enrolled in the study and completed the preoperative and at least 1 postoperative evaluation. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation for cause of anatomical obstruction (see the “Methods” section). The mean patient age was 41.5 years (age range, 18-66 years). Of these patients, 27 (66%) were men and 14 (34%) were women. Four procedures were revisions after previous rhinoplasty or septoplasty. No complications occurred.

The NOSE scale was used to assess disease-specific QOL and is scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe nasal obstruction. Baseline NOSE scores were obtained at a preoperative visit and follow-up NOSE scores were obtained at postoperative visits. In addition, each patient was asked at each visit to mark on a linear scale the severity of their nasal obstruction (Figure). Although patients were asked to return for follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, many deviated from this schedule; thus, follow-up is reported in days. Mean follow-up was 227 days. Mean NOSE scores decreased in all patients who underwent functional rhinoplasty (58.4 vs 15.7; P<.01; Table 1). Similar improvement was noted as measured by the linear symptom scale (7.6 vs 2.2; P<.01; Table 1). Evaluation of each of the 4 items on the NOSE scale individually revealed that patients experienced improvement in all areas (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Scores on Disease-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument (NOSE) and Linear Scales Preoperatively (Baseline) and Postoperatively*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Scores on Disease-Specific, Quality-of-Life Instrument (NOSE) Preoperatively (Baseline) and Postoperatively*

Patients who underwent spreader grafting because of internal valve insufficiency demonstrated similar improvement. In this group of patients, the mean follow-up was 264 days. Mean NOSE scores decreased in all patients who underwent functional rhinoplasty (58.8 vs 16.4; P<.01; Table 1). Similar improvement was noted as measured by the linear symptom scale (7.6 vs 2.3; P<.01; Table 1). Evaluation of each of the 4 items on the NOSE scale individually revealed that patients experienced improvement in all areas (Table 2).

To examine the possible effect of turbinate modification on the overall effectiveness of spreader grafting, the group of patients who underwent spreader grafting was further subdivided into those who underwent turbinate modification and those who did not. More patients underwent concomitant turbinate reduction (n = 24) than those who did not (n = 7). These groups of patients demonstrated similar preoperative symptom severity scores (Tables 1 and 2). Mean follow-up was slightly shorter in patients who underwent turbinate reduction (242 vs 338 days). Mean NOSE scores decreased similarly in both the patients who underwent turbinate reduction (57.8 vs 13.8; P<.01) and those who did not (62.3 vs 24.3; P<.01; Table 1). Similar improvement was noted as measured by the linear symptom scale for those who underwent turbinate reduction (7.6 vs 2.1; P<.01) compared with those who did not (7.6 vs 3.3; P<.001; Table 1). Evaluation of each of the 4 items on the NOSE scale individually revealed that patients experienced improvement in all areas (Table 2). While both NOSE scores and linear symptom scale values were lower postoperatively in patients who underwent turbinate modification than in those who did not, this was not statistically significant (P>.10).

Patients with external valve collapse were treated with bone-anchored sutures to the orbital rim.5 Seven patients underwent this procedure. In this group of patients, the mean follow-up was 110 days (range, 32-390 days). Average NOSE scores decreased in patients who underwent this procedure (66.3 vs 20.0; P<.01; Table 1). Similar improvement was noted as measured by the linear symptom scale (8.6 vs 2.6; P<.001; Table 1). Evaluation of each of the 4 items on the NOSE scale individually revealed that patients experienced improvement in all areas (Table 2).

In this cohort of 41 patients, only 5 underwent septoplasty without spreader grafting or external valve treatment. Partial turbinectomy was performed in all 5 patients. In this group of patients, the mean follow-up was 166 days. Mean NOSE scores decreased in patients in this group (44.0 vs 16.8; P<.05; Table 1). Similar improvement was noted as measured by the linear symptom scale (6.2 vs 1.8; P<.05; Table 1). Evaluation of each of the 4 items on the NOSE scale individually revealed that, while patients experienced improvement in all areas, this reached statistical significance only in the first 2 query fields (Table 2). Overall, preoperative symptoms were lower in patients who underwent septoplasty with turbinectomy compared with patients who underwent the more extensive procedures (scaled NOSE scores, 44.0 ± 17.2 vs 60.4 ± 11.8, respectively; P<.01).

Treatment of nasal obstruction is a challenge to the rhinoplasty surgeon. In some cases, the cause may be an obvious anatomical deformity. More often, however, the cause of nasal obstruction is multifactorial. Nonsurgical causes of nasal obstruction must first be ruled out and treated.17 An understanding of nasal anatomy and the dynamics of nasal airflow are paramount to undertaking a surgical procedure to correct nasal obstruction. Recognition of the importance of the internal and external nasal valve areas in nasal airflow has led to numerous techniques for surgical correction of anatomical narrowing of these areas.1, 3, 6, 18-20 While retrospective analyses of functional rhinoplasty have shown some beneficial effects, the efficacy of these techniques has not been examined prospectively with a disease-specific QOL instrument.13 Miman et al12 have attempted prospective studies to measure changes in nasal airflow with quantitative techniques. These studies are useful because they measure volumetric changes in the nasal cavity, but they do little to measure the subjective sensation of nasal obstruction or airflow in patients.

The NOSE scale is a validated, disease-specific, QOL instrument that has been used to measure the effectiveness of septoplasty and turbinate reduction.15-16 The NOSE scale has been designed for use in measuring nasal obstruction, providing an ideal instrument for use in measuring the effectiveness of functional rhinoplasty techniques. Recently, the NOSE scale was used to prospectively examine the efficacy of a specific nasal reconstructive technique.21 Rhee et al14 studied the efficacy of some functional rhinoplasty techniques using the NOSE instrument in 20 patients. I performed a prospective examination of a larger group of patients to further delineate the efficacy of specific functional rhinoplasty techniques using this QOL instrument. Patients in each subgroup in my study demonstrated improved QOL scores. While the number of patients in some of the treatment groups examined was small, the strengths of the present study are its prospective design, use of a validated instrument, and use of a patient-based outcome assessment. Furthermore, because I performed all of the surgical procedures, intersurgeon technique variability was minimized.

The study was performed at a tertiary medical facility, which may have resulted in a patient population skewed toward more severe or refractory nasal obstruction than that observed in the community. This is reflected in the small number of primary septoplasties performed without need for anterior septal reconstruction, spreader grafting, or external valve treatment. The overall preoperative symptom scores observed were similar to those observed in a study using the same QOL instrument to examine the efficacy of septoplasty.15

The internal nasal valve is affected primarily by 3 components: the angle between the upper lateral cartilage and the septum, the septum itself, and the anterior portion of the inferior turbinate. Each of these is examined individually in forming a plan to address internal valve insufficiency. The current study demonstrates a trend toward lower QOL scores, and, hence, improved breathing in patients who underwent turbinate reduction in conjunction with spreader grafting compared with those who did not, although this was not statistically significant. The statistical power of this portion of the study was hampered by the low number of patients who did not undergo turbinate reduction in conjunction with spreader grafting. This may indicate that, even in cases in which the turbinate may be deemed within normal limits, turbinate reduction would increase cross-sectional area and improve the airway. Examination of a larger number of patients may confirm this. The use of prospectively designed studies to analyze functional rhinoplasty techniques, such as this study, should ultimately benefit both patients undergoing rhinoplasty and their surgeons.

Correspondence: Sam P. Most, MD, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Cosmetic Surgery Center, 4242 Roosevelt Way NE, Box 354716, Seattle, WA 98105 (smost@ohns.stanford.edu).

Accepted for Publication: June 13, 2006.

Park  SS Treatment of the internal nasal valve Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7333- 345
Rohrich  RJHollier  LH Use of spreader grafts in the external approach to rhinoplasty Clin Plast Surg 1996;23255- 262
PubMed
Sheen  JH Spreader graft: a method of reconstructing the roof of the middle nasal vault following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984;73230- 239
PubMed
Vidyasagar  RFriedman  MIbrahim  HBliznikas  DJoseph  NJ Inspiratory and fixed nasal valve collapse: clinical and rhinometric assessment Am J Rhinol 2005;19370- 374
PubMed
Friedman  MIbrahim  HLee  GJoseph  NJ A simplified technique for airway correction at the nasal valve area Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131519- 524
PubMed
Chand  MSToriumi  DM Treatment of the external nasal valve Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7347- 356
Paniello  RC Nasal valve suspension: an effective treatment for nasal valve collapse Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;1221342- 1346
PubMed
Kosoy  J Nasal surgery and airway resistance Laryngoscope 1979;891655- 1680
PubMed
Courtiss  EHGoldwyn  RM The effects of nasal surgery on airflow Plast Reconstr Surg 1983;729- 21
PubMed
Jessen  MJacobsson  SMalm  L On rhinomanometry in rhinoplasty Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81506- 511
PubMed
McKee  GJO'Neill  GRoberts  CLesser  TH Nasal airflow after septorhinoplasty Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1994;19254- 257
PubMed
Miman  MCDeliktas  HOzturan  OToplu  YAkarcay  M Internal nasal valve: revisited with objective facts Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;13441- 47
PubMed
Khosh  MMJen  AHonrado  CPearlman  SJ Nasal valve reconstruction: experience in 53 consecutive patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6167- 171
PubMed
Rhee  JSPoetker  DMSmith  TLBustillo  ABurzynski  MDavis  RE Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life Laryngoscope 2005;115437- 440
PubMed
Stewart  MGSmith  TLWeaver  EM  et al.  Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130283- 290
PubMed
Stewart  MGWitsell  DLSmith  TLWeaver  EMYueh  BHannley  MT Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130157- 163
PubMed
Wei  JLRemington  WJSherris  DA Work-up and evaluation of patients with nasal obstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7263- 278
Schlosser  RJPark  SS Functional nasal surgery Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1999;3237- 51
PubMed
Goode  RL Surgery of the incompetent nasal valve Laryngoscope 1985;95546- 555
PubMed
Andre  RFPaun  SHVuyk  HD Endonasal spreader graft placement as treatment for internal nasal valve insufficiency: no need to divide the upper lateral cartilages from the septum Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;636- 40
PubMed
Most  SP Anterior septal reconstruction: outcomes after a modified extracorporeal septoplasty technique Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8202- 207
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Nasal Obstructive Symptoms Evaluation scale. This questionnaire was given to patients preoperatively and postoperatively (see “Methods” section).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Scores on Disease-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument (NOSE) and Linear Scales Preoperatively (Baseline) and Postoperatively*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Scores on Disease-Specific, Quality-of-Life Instrument (NOSE) Preoperatively (Baseline) and Postoperatively*

References

Park  SS Treatment of the internal nasal valve Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7333- 345
Rohrich  RJHollier  LH Use of spreader grafts in the external approach to rhinoplasty Clin Plast Surg 1996;23255- 262
PubMed
Sheen  JH Spreader graft: a method of reconstructing the roof of the middle nasal vault following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984;73230- 239
PubMed
Vidyasagar  RFriedman  MIbrahim  HBliznikas  DJoseph  NJ Inspiratory and fixed nasal valve collapse: clinical and rhinometric assessment Am J Rhinol 2005;19370- 374
PubMed
Friedman  MIbrahim  HLee  GJoseph  NJ A simplified technique for airway correction at the nasal valve area Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131519- 524
PubMed
Chand  MSToriumi  DM Treatment of the external nasal valve Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7347- 356
Paniello  RC Nasal valve suspension: an effective treatment for nasal valve collapse Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;1221342- 1346
PubMed
Kosoy  J Nasal surgery and airway resistance Laryngoscope 1979;891655- 1680
PubMed
Courtiss  EHGoldwyn  RM The effects of nasal surgery on airflow Plast Reconstr Surg 1983;729- 21
PubMed
Jessen  MJacobsson  SMalm  L On rhinomanometry in rhinoplasty Plast Reconstr Surg 1988;81506- 511
PubMed
McKee  GJO'Neill  GRoberts  CLesser  TH Nasal airflow after septorhinoplasty Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1994;19254- 257
PubMed
Miman  MCDeliktas  HOzturan  OToplu  YAkarcay  M Internal nasal valve: revisited with objective facts Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;13441- 47
PubMed
Khosh  MMJen  AHonrado  CPearlman  SJ Nasal valve reconstruction: experience in 53 consecutive patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6167- 171
PubMed
Rhee  JSPoetker  DMSmith  TLBustillo  ABurzynski  MDavis  RE Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life Laryngoscope 2005;115437- 440
PubMed
Stewart  MGSmith  TLWeaver  EM  et al.  Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130283- 290
PubMed
Stewart  MGWitsell  DLSmith  TLWeaver  EMYueh  BHannley  MT Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130157- 163
PubMed
Wei  JLRemington  WJSherris  DA Work-up and evaluation of patients with nasal obstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 1999;7263- 278
Schlosser  RJPark  SS Functional nasal surgery Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1999;3237- 51
PubMed
Goode  RL Surgery of the incompetent nasal valve Laryngoscope 1985;95546- 555
PubMed
Andre  RFPaun  SHVuyk  HD Endonasal spreader graft placement as treatment for internal nasal valve insufficiency: no need to divide the upper lateral cartilages from the septum Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;636- 40
PubMed
Most  SP Anterior septal reconstruction: outcomes after a modified extracorporeal septoplasty technique Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8202- 207
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 43

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
CME Related by Topic
PubMed Articles