Journal of Isfahan Dental School

Assessment of Patients and Surgeons Satisfaction from Nasal Function and Appearance Following Closed Reduction

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Dental Graduate Student, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Dental Student, Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Nasal fracture is the most common fracture of the maxillofacial region, so surgeons’ and patients’ satisfaction after closed reduction from aesthetic and functional (including the effects of respiration and olfaction) perspective is important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of surgeons and patients with the appearance and function of the nose after closed reduction surgery during 6-12 months after surgery to improve the results of this method.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical and cross-sectional study was performed on 90 patients in Alzahra and Kashani hospitals of Isfahan during the years 1397-1398 who underwent a closed reduction of nasal fracture within 6-12 months after surgery. All patients and surgeons answered questions about aesthetic and functional outcomes and the need for septorhinoplasty after closed reduction. Pearson correlation coefficient, t-test and paired-sample t-test were used to analyze the data. P-value less than 0.05 was considered as a significant level.
Results: About 55% of patients were satisfied with the esthetic outcome and 38.8% expressed they would consider further surgery to correct the residual nasal deformity. The mean score of surgeons’ satisfaction for nasal aesthetic and function was 3.74 and 3.50. surgeons expressed that the patients’ requirement for septorhinoplasty is low to moderate
Conclusion: Satisfaction of the patient and the surgeon with the nasal closed reduction was in the high-medium range. Also, according to both patients’ and surgeons’ opinions, requirement for septorhinoplasty surgery has a significant and direct relationship with aesthetic issues and also obstruction of the airway following a nasal bone fracture.
Keywords: Nasal Surgical Procedures, Closed Fracture Reduction, Patient Satisfaction, Nasal obstruction

1. Hung T, Chang W, Vlantis AC, Tong MCF, van Hasselt CA. Patient satisfaction after closed reduction of nasal fractures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007; 9(1): 40-3.
2. Kim JH, Lee JH, Hong SM, Park CH. Open reduction of nasal bone fractures through an intercartilaginous incision. Acta Otolaryngol 2013; 133(1): 77-81.
3. Ashoor AJ, Alkhars FA. Nasal bone fracture. Saudi Med J 2000; 21(5): 471-4.
4. Yilmaz MS, Guven M, Varli AF. Nasal fractures: is closed reduction satisfying? J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24(1): e36-8.
5. Reilly MJ, Davison SP. Open vs closed approach to the nasal pyramid for fracture reduction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007; 9(2): 82-6.
6. Illum P, Kristensen S, Jørgensen K, Pedersen CB. Role of fixation in the treatment of nasal fractures. lin Otolaryngol Allied Sc 1983; 8(3): 191-5.
7. Ichida M, Komuro Y, Koizumi T, Shimizu A, Yanai A. A repositioning technique for nasal fracture using the little finger. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19(6): 1512-7.
8. Murray JA, Maran AG. The treatment of nasal injuries by manipulation. J Laryngol Otol 1980; 94(12): 1405-10.
9. Faryabi J, Enhesari A, Sigari P, Pouradeli S. Efficacy of closed reduction surgery on treatment of nasal bone fracture in admitted patients to Shahid Bahonar Hospital, Kerman, Iran. J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol 2016; 5(3): 148-53.
10. Vilela F, Granjeiro R, Júnior CM, Andrade P. Applicability and effectiveness of closed reduction of nasal fractures under local anesthesia. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 18(3): 266-71.
11. Mayell M. Nasal fractures. Their occurrence, management and some late results. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1973; 18(1): 31-6.
12. Harrison DH. Nasal injuries: their pathogenesis and treatment. Br J Plast Surg 1979; 32(1): 57-64.
13. Staffel JG. Optimizing treatment of nasal fractures. Laryngoscope 2002; 112(10): 1709-19.
14. Ridder GJ, Boedeker CC, Fradis M, Schipper J. Technique and timing for closed reduction of isolated nasal fractures: a retrospective study. Ear Nose Throat J 2002; 81(1): 49-54.
15. Ondik MP, Lipinski L, Dezfoli S, Fedok FG. The treatment of nasal fractures: a changing paradigm. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11(5): 296-302.
16. Mondin V, Rinaldo A, Ferlito A. Management of nasal bone fractures. Am J Otolaryngol 2005; 26(3): 181-5.
17. Love RL. Nasal fractures: patient satisfaction following closed reduction. N Z Med J 2010; 123(1321): 45-8.
18. Rohrich RJ, Adams Jr WP. Nasal fracture management: minimizing secondary nasal deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106(2): 266-73.
19. Bakardjiev A, Pechalova P. Maxillofacial fractures in Southern Bulgaria-a retrospective study of 1706 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35(3): 147-50.
20. Stewart EJ, Robinson K, Wilson JA. Assessment of patient benefit from rhinoplasty. Rhinology 1996; 34(1): 57-9.
21. Jessen M, Ivarsson A, Malm L. Nasal airway resistance and symptoms after functional septoplasty: comparison of findings at 9-month and 9-year. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1989; 14(3): 231-4.
22. Fernandes SV. Nasal fractures: the taming of the shrewd. Laryngoscope 2004; 114(3): 587-92.
23. Robinson J. The fractured nose: late results of closed manipulation. N Z Med J 1984; 97(755): 296-7.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2022