Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump reduction: a randomized prospective study, functional and aesthetic outcomes.

purposeTo compare the functional and esthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and conventional dorsal hump reduction (DHR) in primary rhinoplasty using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

methodsIn our randomized prospective double-blinded clinical trial, 50 patients had dorsal nasal hump surgery between October 2021 and November 2022 in our tertiary referral center. All surgeries were done by the same surgeon. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group (A): 25 patients had DPR, and group (B): 25 patients underwent DHR. Pre-operative and post-operative evaluations were conducted using standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey (SCHNOS), surgeons' rhinoplasty evaluation questionnaire (SREQ), and the CBCT.

resultsFollowing an average of 7.22 ± 2.07 months, patients in both groups reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction, as measured by the SCHNOS score (p < 0.001) and the average of three SREQ scores (p < 0.001). These results align with the radiological analysis, which denoted an overall improvement in the average of both sides' internal nasal valve angle and cross-sectional area after surgery with (p = 0.001) and (p = 0.085), respectively, for the DPR group and with (p = 0.281) and (p = 0.014), respectively, for the DHR group. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between both groups (p > 0.05).

conclusionDorsal preservation is a viable alternative to conventional dorsal hump reduction in primary rhinoplasty. There was no difference in the functional and esthetic outcomes between both techniques, which were verified by radiological investigation.