Robert F André1, Hadé D Vuyk. 1. Department of Otolaryngology/Facial Plastic Surgery, Rijnland Hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands. r.andre@rijnland.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe and compare two techniques used to correct nasal septum deviations located in the dorsal and/or caudal septum. STUDY DESIGN: The authors conducted a retrospective clinical chart review. METHODS: The authors conducted a comparison of functional and technical results between surgery in the L-strut of the septum in 114 patients with septal battens or by septal replacement by subjective self-evaluation and by examination of the position of the septum during follow up. RESULTS: There was subjective improvement in nasal breathing in 86% of the septal batten group and in 94% of the septal replacement group. This difference was not statistically significant. The technical result was judged by examining the position of the septum during follow up as midline, slightly deviated, or severely deviated. The septum was significantly more often located in the midline during follow up in the septal replacement group than in the septal batten group. CONCLUSION: Treatment of deformities located in the structurally important L-strut of the septum may be technically challenging and many functional, structural, and esthetic considerations must be taken into account. On the basis of this series, both septal battens and septal replacement techniques may be considered for correction of deviations in this area. The functional improvement rates were not significantly different between the techniques, although during follow up, the septum appeared to be significantly more often located in the midline in the septal replacement group. The techniques are described and their respective advantages and potential drawbacks are discussed.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe and compare two techniques used to correct nasal septum deviations located in the dorsal and/or caudal septum. STUDY DESIGN: The authors conducted a retrospective clinical chart review. METHODS: The authors conducted a comparison of functional and technical results between surgery in the L-strut of the septum in 114 patients with septal battens or by septal replacement by subjective self-evaluation and by examination of the position of the septum during follow up. RESULTS: There was subjective improvement in nasal breathing in 86% of the septal batten group and in 94% of the septal replacement group. This difference was not statistically significant. The technical result was judged by examining the position of the septum during follow up as midline, slightly deviated, or severely deviated. The septum was significantly more often located in the midline during follow up in the septal replacement group than in the septal batten group. CONCLUSION: Treatment of deformities located in the structurally important L-strut of the septum may be technically challenging and many functional, structural, and esthetic considerations must be taken into account. On the basis of this series, both septal battens and septal replacement techniques may be considered for correction of deviations in this area. The functional improvement rates were not significantly different between the techniques, although during follow up, the septum appeared to be significantly more often located in the midline in the septal replacement group. The techniques are described and their respective advantages and potential drawbacks are discussed.