Spare Roof Technique Versus Component Dorsal Hump Reduction: A Randomized Prospective Study in 250 Primary Rhinoplasties, Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Most Caucasian aesthetic rhinoplasty patients complain about having a noticeable hump in profile view. Taking the integrity of the middle vault into consideration, there are 2 ways to dehump a nose: the structured technique and the preservation technique. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic and functional outcomes of 2 reduction rhinoplasty techniques. METHODS:We performed a prospective, randomized, interventional, and longitudinal study on 250 patients randomly divided into 2 groups: the component dorsal hump reduction group (CDRg) (n = 125) and the spare roof technique group (SRTg) (n = 125). We utilized the Utrecht Questionnaire for Outcome Assessment in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. Patients answered the questionnaire before the surgery, and at 3 and 12 months after surgery. In addition, we utilized a visual analog scale (VAS) to score nasal patency for each side. RESULTS:Analyses of the preoperative and postoperative aesthetic VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups, from 3.66 to 7.00 (at 3 months) to 7.35 (at 12 months) in the CDRg, and from 3.81 to 8.14 (at 3 months) to 8.45 (at 12 months) in the SRTg. Analyses of postoperative means of aesthetic VAS scores showed a significant improvement in both groups over time. However, aesthetic improvement was higher in the SRTg than in the CDRg at both 3 (P < 0.001) and 12 months (P < 0.001) postsurgery. Analyses of the mean functional VAS scores showed a significant improvement with both techniques, with a better result for the SRTg. CONCLUSIONS:The SRT is a reliable technique that can help deliver consistently better aesthetic and functional results than CDR for reduction rhinoplasty in Caucasian patients with a dorsal hump. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2: