LAUSR

BACKGROUND The majority of Caucasian aesthetic rhinoplasty patients complains about a noticeable hump in the profile view. Based on the integrity of the middle vault, there are two ways to dehump a nose: the structured technique and the preservation technique. OBJECTIVES We compared the aesthetical and functional outcomes of two techniques utilized for reduction rhinoplasty. METHODS We performed a prospective, randomized, interventional, and longitudinal study on 250 patients randomly divided into two groups: the component dorsal hump reduction group (CDRg) (n = 125) and the spare roof technique group (SRTg) (n = 125). We utilized the Utrecht Questionnaire for Outcome Assessment in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. Patients answered the questionnaire before the surgery, and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. In addition, we utilized a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to score nasal patency for each side. RESULTS Analyses of the preoperative and postoperative aesthetical VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups, from 3.66 to 7.00 (at 3 months) and to 7.35 (at 12 months) in CDRg, and from 3.81 to 8.14 (at 3 months) and to 8.45 (at 12 months) in SRTg. Analyses of postoperative means of aesthetic VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups over time. However, aesthetical improvement was higher in SRTg than CDRg, concerning 3 (P < .001) and 12 months (P < 0.001) postsurgery. Analyses of the mean functional VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both techniques, with a better result for SRTg. CONCLUSIONS The spare roof technique (SRT) is a reliable technique that can help deliver consistently better aesthetical and functional results in reduction rhinoplasty over component dorsal hump reduction CDR in Caucasian patients with dorsal hump.