rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Septum, valve and airway · Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology · 2014

JAMA FPS JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery · 2014

Treatment outcomes of extracorporeal septoplasty compared with in situ septal correction in rhinoplasty

Lee SB, Jang YJ.

What this paper says

Comparing 84 patients whose septum was straightened outside the nose with 85 matched patients straightened in place, appearance results were similar but no extracorporeal patient had lasting blockage against 6.4 percent of the in situ group.

Overview

A markedly crooked nose can be corrected by removing the septum, reshaping it outside the body and replacing it, or by working on it in place. The authors state that no study had compared the two. They reviewed records of 169 patients operated between July 2006 and December 2012 at their centre.

Sections of note

  • Retrospective review of 169 patients; 84 had extracorporeal septoplasty and 85 age and sex matched controls had in situ correction at a similar time.
  • In situ techniques included batten and spreader grafting and caudal cutting with suture, alone or combined.
  • Outcomes came from anthropometric measurement of photographs plus chart review of function and complications.
  • Deviation types in the extracorporeal group were 52 I-shape (61.9 percent) and 32 C-shape (38.1 percent); in the in situ group 59 I-shape (69.4 percent) and 26 C-shape (30.6 percent).
  • Deviation angle, nasofrontal and nasolabial angles and tip projection all improved significantly in both groups.
  • Mean operating time was 135 minutes for extracorporeal and 128 minutes for in situ.
  • Complication rates for dorsal irregularity, saddling and infection were similar; no extracorporeal patient had postoperative obstruction against 5 of 78 (6.4 percent) in situ patients needing revision septoplasty. Level of evidence 3.

What it means for a patient

  • For a markedly crooked nose, both methods straightened the appearance to a similar degree.
  • The difference was in breathing: persistent blockage requiring another operation occurred only in the in situ group.
  • Retrospective with matched rather than randomised groups, so unmeasured differences between patients could affect the result.
  • The extra operating time for the more extensive method was about seven minutes on average.

Why this paper matters

Extracorporeal septoplasty is more invasive, and this is the first reported comparison testing whether that buys anything. Unanswered is how the two compare over years, particularly for late collapse of a reconstructed septum.

Terms

  • Extracorporeal septoplasty: removing the septum, reshaping it outside the body, and replacing it.
  • In situ correction: straightening the septum while it stays in place.
  • Batten graft: a strip of cartilage placed to brace a weak or bent area.
  • Spreader graft: a strip of cartilage placed alongside the septum to widen the airway.
  • Saddling: collapse of the bridge leaving a dip in the profile.
  • Anthropometric measurement: measuring set distances and angles on photographs.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-08; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

From the abstract

“Extracorporeal septoplasty (ECS) in rhinoplasty is a useful surgical procedure that can achieve considerable functional and aesthetic improvements in the treatment of a deviated nose. However, to our knowledge, no study has compared the treatment outcomes of ECS with those of in situ septal correction (ISSC) in…”

Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.

Citation

PubMed
Journal
JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery
Year
2014
Authors
2
Type
Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article
Access
Subscription
On this site
Summary and abstract

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2014.

  1. APS
    2014PMID 24902906Summary
  2. FPS
    Quality of life in patients who underwent rhinoplasty
    Zojaji R, Keshavarzmanesh M, Arshadi HR et al.
    2014PMID 25397717Summary
  3. PRS
    2014PMID 24374691
  4. PRS
    2014PMID 24374692
  5. PRS
    2014PMID 25415095Summary
  6. PRS
    2014PMID 24569427Summary