Journal archive · Rib, ear and septal grafts · Septum, valve and airway · Cleft, trauma and reconstruction · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2019
Role of Spreader Flaps in Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Patients Undergoing Correction for Severe Septal Deviation with Long-Term Follow-Up
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Colapietra A, Alessandri Bonetti M, Morelli Coppola M, List E, Ciarrocchi S, Tenna S, Persichetti P.
What this paper says
In 264 patients randomized to four techniques for severe septal deviation, combining spreader flaps with spreader grafts gave the best correction of the deviation angle and held it close to straight over long-term follow-up.
Overview
Severe septal deviation is difficult to correct durably, and surgeons disagree about whether flaps, grafts, both or neither should be used. This randomized study compared all four options, measuring the deviation angle on images and collecting satisfaction on a validated questionnaire.
Sections of note
- 264 patients who had primary rhinoplasty between January 2010 and September 2016 met inclusion criteria.
- Randomized into four groups: group 1 spreader flaps plus spreader grafts; group 2 flaps alone; group 3 grafts alone; group 4 neither.
- Patients answered the Italian version of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module.
- Anthropometric measurements were made with AutoCAD, determining the angle of deviation before and after surgery, compared with the chi-squared test.
- Two plastic surgeons reviewed all postoperative photographs and rated them on a scale of 1 to 5.
- Group 1 showed statistically significant differences from the other groups in deviation angle change, P below 0.01, and maintained an angle close to 180 degrees over long-term follow-up.
- Groups 1 and 3 were more satisfied than groups 2 and 4, P below 0.01, and were also rated most satisfactory by the two reviewers. Level of evidence IV.
What it means for a patient
- Using both a flap and a graft together gave the straightest and most durable result for a severely deviated septum.
- Flaps alone performed no better than doing neither on satisfaction.
- Grafts alone gave satisfaction comparable to the combination, but not the same durability of correction.
- Limits: single center, the abstract gives no follow-up duration despite the long-term claim, and the level of evidence is stated as IV despite the randomized design.
Why this paper matters
Middle vault reconstruction after correcting a deviated septum is done differently by different surgeons with little comparative evidence. A four-arm randomized comparison in 264 patients is unusually strong for this field. The unstated follow-up length limits how the durability claim can be read.
Terms
- Septal deviation: A crooked central wall inside the nose.
- Spreader graft: A separate cartilage strip placed alongside the septum for support.
- Spreader flap: The upper lateral cartilage folded inward and used instead of a graft.
- Angle of deviation: The measured departure of the nose from straight; 180 degrees is straight.
- FACE-Q: A modular validated questionnaire covering facial appearance outcomes.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“The aim of this randomized controlled study was to analyze the long-term results of patients undergoing rhinoplasty because of severe septal deviation and to evaluate the stability of results. Materials And Methods: The study was performed with a randomized design. Patients were randomly divided into four groups:…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.
Rib, ear and septal grafts
242 papers on this topic.
Septum, valve and airway
195 papers on this topic.
Cleft, trauma and reconstruction
171 papers on this topic.
Anatomy and nasal analysis
325 papers on this topic.
Related papers
Same topic, 2019.
- ASJ Beyond the L-Strut: Redefining the Biomechanics of Rhinoplasty Using Topographic Optimization ModelingGlass GE, Staruch RMT, Ruston J et al.2019PMID 30380010Summary
- ASJ Commentary on: Functional/Aesthetic Measures of Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A ReviewEast C2019PMID 31145779
- ASJ Functional/Aesthetic Measures of Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A ReviewXiao H, Zhao Y, Liu L et al.2019PMID 30722008Summary
- ASJ In-House Manufacture of Sterilizable, Scaled, Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Models for RhinoplastyBekisz JM, Liss HA, Maliha SG et al.2019PMID 29982464Summary
- ASJ Onlay Fascial Grafts to Silicone-Polytetrafluorethylene Composite Implants in Augmentation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Study of 241 CasesKhoo LS, Yen CI, Chang CS et al.2019PMID 31329818Summary
- ASJ Scroll Reconstruction: Fine Tuning of the Interface Between Middle and Lower Thirds in RhinoplastyBitik O, Uzun H, Konaş E2019PMID 29394311Summary
- ASJ 2019PMID 30107387Summary
- APS A Safer Non-surgical Filler Augmentation Rhinoplasty Based on the Anatomy of the NoseJung GS, Chu SG, Lee JW et al.2019PMID 30560283Summary