Journal archive · Cleft, trauma and reconstruction · Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2020
Primary Rhinoplasty Does Not Interfere with Nasal Growth: A Long-Term Three-Dimensional Morphometric Outcome Study in Patients with Unilateral Cleft
Seo HJ, Denadai R, Vamvanij N, Chinpaisarn C, Lo LJ.
What this paper says
Comparing 52 cleft patients who had primary rhinoplasty in infancy, now at mean age 19, against 52 matched controls, most nasal measurements including height, width, surface area and volume showed no significant difference.
Overview
The main objection to operating on the cleft nose in infancy is that it might restrict nasal growth. This study measured patients who had that surgery between 1995 and 2002 and have now reached skeletal maturity, comparing them against matched people without a cleft.
Sections of note
- Three-dimensional nasal morphometric measurements, linear, angular, proportional, surface area and volume, from 52 consecutive patients, mean age 19 years SD 1.
- All had undergone primary rhinoplasty using the Noordhoff approach between 1995 and 2002 and reached skeletal maturity.
- 52 normal subjects matched for age, sex and ethnicity served as controls.
- No significant differences, all p above 0.05, for nasal height, alar width, dorsum angle, columellar angle, columellar-labial angle, tip to height ratio, nasal index, alar width to intercanthal distance ratio, nasal surface area, and nasal volume.
- The cleft group had significantly lower nasal bridge length and tip projection, p below 0.05.
- The cleft group had greater nasal protrusion, tip and midline deviation, nasal tip angle, tip protrusion width index, and alar width to mouth ratio.
- The authors state further imaging studies are needed to assess development of other nasal structures. Level of evidence IV.
What it means for a patient
- Operating on the cleft nose in infancy did not restrict overall nasal growth measured at around age 19.
- The differences that remain, a shorter bridge and less tip projection, reflect the underlying cleft rather than growth restriction.
- Residual deviation of the tip and midline persisted into adulthood.
- Limits: not randomized, single surgeon and technique, surface measurements only, and no comparison against cleft patients who did not have primary rhinoplasty.
Why this paper matters
The growth objection has kept some centers from operating on the cleft nose in infancy, and this provides measurements at skeletal maturity. Comparison against normal controls rather than untreated cleft patients is the design limitation. Internal structures were not imaged, which the authors flag as unfinished.
Terms
- Primary rhinoplasty: Nasal reshaping done at the same time as the first cleft lip repair in infancy.
- Skeletal maturity: The point at which bone growth is complete.
- Morphometric measurement: Measurement of shape and size.
- Nasal index: The ratio of nasal width to nasal height.
- Intercanthal distance: The distance between the inner corners of the eyes.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“Primary rhinoplasty has not been universally adopted because the potential for nasal growth impairment remains an unsolved issue in cleft care. This study's purpose was to assess the long-term effects of primary rhinoplasty performed by a single surgeon in a cohort of patients with a unilateral cleft lip nose…”
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.
Cleft, trauma and reconstruction
171 papers on this topic.
Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology
233 papers on this topic.
Anatomy and nasal analysis
325 papers on this topic.
Related papers
Same topic, 2020.
- ASJ Analysis of the Effects of Isotretinoin on Rhinoplasty PatientsYahyavi S, Jahandideh H, Izadi M et al.2020PMID 32756944Summary
- ASJ Commentary on: Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewBaker SB2020PMID 31181135
- ASJ 2020PMID 32232381
- ASJ Concept of Anatomic Columellar Strut Grafting in Rhinoplasty: An Algorithmic ApproachSantareno S, Taş S2020PMID 31675056
- ASJ Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewHassan Y, Leveille CF, Gallo L et al.2020PMID 31051500Summary
- ASJ Step-Specific Simulation: The Utility of 3D Printing for the Fabrication of a Low-Cost, Learning Needs-Based Rhinoplasty SimulatorZammit D, Safran T, Ponnudurai N et al.2020PMID 32064498Summary
- ASJ The Value of Averageness in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Humans Like Average Nosesvan Zijl FVWJ, Perrett DI, Lohuis PJFM et al.2020PMID 31960890Summary
- APS A Comparative Analysis of Patients' Quality of Life, Body Image and Self-confidence Before and After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty SurgeryBorujeni LA, Pourmotabed S, Abdoli Z et al.2020PMID 31832733Summary