BACKGROUND: Among all facial fractures, nasal bone fractures are the most common, and they have been reduced by closed reduction (CR) for a long time. But several authors have reported suboptimal results when using CR, and the best method of nasal bone reduction is still being debated. We have found that indirect open reduction (IOR) through an endonasal incisional approach is a useful method for more accurate reduction of the nasal bone. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 356 patients who underwent reduction of a nasal bone fracture in our department from January, 2006, to July, 2011. We treated 263 patients with IOR. We assessed patients' and doctors' satisfaction with surgical outcomes after IOR or CR. We evaluated the frequency of nasal bleeding owing to mucosal injury, and followed the surgical outcomes of patients who had simultaneous dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. RESULTS: According to the analysis of the satisfaction scores, both patients and doctors were significantly more satisfied in the IOR group than the CR group (P<0.05). Mucosal injury with nasal bleeding occurred much less in the IOR group (5.3%) than the CR group (12.9%). Dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with IOR was performed simultaneously in 34 cases. Most of them (31/34) showed satisfaction with the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IOR enables surgeons to manipulate the bony fragment directly through the endonasal incisional approach. However, we propose that CR is the proper technique for patients under 16 and for those with comminuted nasal bone fractures because submucosal dissection in IOR can damage the growth or circulation of nasal bone.
BACKGROUND: Among all facial fractures, nasal bone fractures are the most common, and they have been reduced by closed reduction (CR) for a long time. But several authors have reported suboptimal results when using CR, and the best method of nasal bone reduction is still being debated. We have found that indirect open reduction (IOR) through an endonasal incisional approach is a useful method for more accurate reduction of the nasal bone. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 356 patients who underwent reduction of a nasal bone fracture in our department from January, 2006, to July, 2011. We treated 263 patients with IOR. We assessed patients' and doctors' satisfaction with surgical outcomes after IOR or CR. We evaluated the frequency of nasal bleeding owing to mucosal injury, and followed the surgical outcomes of patients who had simultaneous dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. RESULTS: According to the analysis of the satisfaction scores, both patients and doctors were significantly more satisfied in the IOR group than the CR group (P<0.05). Mucosal injury with nasal bleeding occurred much less in the IOR group (5.3%) than the CR group (12.9%). Dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty with IOR was performed simultaneously in 34 cases. Most of them (31/34) showed satisfaction with the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IOR enables surgeons to manipulate the bony fragment directly through the endonasal incisional approach. However, we propose that CR is the proper technique for patients under 16 and for those with comminuted nasal bone fractures because submucosal dissection in IOR can damage the growth or circulation of nasal bone.
Authors: Jun Ho Lee; Ki Rin Park; Tae Gon Kim; Ju-Ho Ha; Kyu-Jin Chung; Yong-Ha Kim; Soo Jung Lee; Soo Hwan Kang Journal: Arch Plast Surg Date: 2013-07-17