LAUSR

Introduction Nasal osteotomy is a powerful cornerstone step in almost all rhinoplasty procedures and is a major cause of postoperative periorbital ecchymosis and edema after rhinoplasty. Different accesses for osteotomy have been described, the most popular of which is the external perforating and the internal continuous methods. These accesses are blind maneuvers and have some drawbacks such as possible visible scar formation in the percutaneous access or high rate of mucosal tear in the endonasal access. Open sky access osteotomy after wide subperiosteal dissection had been described to overcome those disadvantages. Early postoperative sequelae have not been assessed in the literature after using this access. In the present study, we aim to assess early postoperative sequelae after using this technique in comparison with percutaneous perforating osteotomy. Materials and Methods The study was conducted between November 2017 and January 2021. Forty patients were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups. Group A was subjected to lateral osteotomy by percutaneous perforating method, whereas group B underwent lateral osteotomy by the open sky access technique using a 2-mm curved osteotome. Early postoperative periorbital sequelae were assessed on the second and seventh postoperative days, using the grading system suggested by Kara et al (Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:2213–2218). Mucosal tear was assessed on the second postoperative day using nasal endoscopy after removal of nasal packs. Results There was a statistically nonsignificant difference between the studied groups regarding ecchymosis and edema occurring on the second or seventh days. Meanwhile, mucosal tear was significantly less in the open sky access osteotomy group. Conclusions Open sky access osteotomy is a safe method for lateral nasal osteotomy with direct visualization of the surgical field. It does not require a skin incision that could lead to a scar formation. It produces less mucosal tear than percutaneous perforating osteotomy. No statistically significant difference is found between both techniques regarding postoperative periorbital ecchymosis and edema on the second and seventh postoperative days.