Costal Cartilage Lateral Crural Strut Graft vs Cephalic Crural Turn-in for Correction of External Valve Dysfunction.

Related Articles

Costal Cartilage Lateral Crural Strut Graft vs Cephalic Crural Turn-in for Correction of External Valve Dysfunction.

JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015 Sep-Oct;17(5):340-5

Authors: Barham HP, Knisely A, Christensen J, Sacks R, Marcells GN, Harvey RJ

Abstract
IMPORTANCE: External nasal valve dysfunction (EVD) is a common cause of nasal obstruction.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costal cartilage lateral crural strut grafts vs cephalic crural turn-in to support the weak lateral crus in patients with EVD.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective cohort study, patients with clinically diagnosed EVD were assessed at the Tertiary Rhinologic Center and underwent a costal cartilage underlay graft to the lateral crus or a cephalic turn-in cruralplasty.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Assessment of patient benefit was based on 22-Item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale (NOSE) scores. A Likert scale was also used to assess overall function and cosmesis. Objective assessment included postdecongestion nasal peak inspiratory flow, nasal airway resistance, and minimum cross-sectional area.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients (mean [SD] 35.38 [12.73] years of age; 25 [61%] female) were assessed. Cephalic turn-in maneuver was used for 25 (61%) patients; costal cartilage lateral crural strut grafts, 16 (39%) patients. Costal cartilage grafts were used in patients undergoing revision but other baseline data were similar. Follow-up was mean 10.58 (7.52) months. All patients had significantly improved visual analog scale, SNOT-22, NOSE, patient-reported function, and cosmesis scores. The only objective test that improved was nasal peak inspiratory flow (114.76 [60.48] L/min vs 126.46 [61.17] L/min; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both techniques were effective in improving patient-reported outcomes and nasal peak inspiratory flow. Both are functionally and cosmetically viable options for correction of EVD.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

PMID: 26247619 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

from #ENT-PubMed via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/1RpFeSw
via IFTTT