3.8 Article

Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 245-249

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00238-010-0502-9

Keywords

Posttraumatic; Distortion of nose; Rhinoplasty; Sexual dimorphism; Caucasian race; Preoperative planning; Aesthetic nose

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic results of post traumatic rhinoplasty among Europeans with populations of healthy Caucasians described in earlier reports, and to collate correct parameters of nasal shape in healthy representatives of both sexes and various races for improvement in aesthetic results of surgery. 3-D scanning of the face was performed in 54 patients after posttraumatic septorhinoplasty. Analysis of 3D model was based on two indices of the nasal proportions and four angles of the region from 18 anthropological points. Parameters of the nasal shape in addition to gender were compared to average values of healthy Caucasian population, described before. Normal characteristics of the nose among individuals of three races from previous studies were also compared to one another. In females, mean height and width of the nose as well as length of both nostrils was smaller. Neither were there any significant differences in width of the nostrils and length of the nasal pyramid nor nasal prominence. Nasal proportions were similar in both sexes. Some of the nasal angles differed in addition to gender. Posttraumatic rhinoplasty resulted in correct shape of the nose similar to the healthy Caucasian population. The aesthetic nose differ among healthy individuals of the three races analysed. While preoperative planning is important, knowledge of the normal values of parameters characterising shape in both genders is equally important as the individual differences in relation to the whole face.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available