4.4 Article

Analysis of the Development of the Nasal Septum according to Age and Gender Using MRI

Journal

Publisher

KOREAN SOC OTORHINOLARYNGOL
DOI: 10.3342/ceo.2008.1.1.29

Keywords

Septum; Cartilage; Magnetic resonance imaging; Development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. This study was designed to evaluate the normal development of the nasal septum in Koreans using sagittal MRI for the valuable clinical information on septal procedures. Methods. Two hundred eighty patients who had their whole nasal septum visualized in the midline sagittal view were selected among the 3,904 patients with brain MRI from January, 2004 to December, 2006 at Dankook University Hospital. The patients who had a history of nasal septal surgery or nasal trauma were excluded. Following parameters are calculated and analyzed: lengths of bony and cartilage dorsum and septal cartilage-nasal bone overlap, total septal area, septal cartilage area and, the proportion of the cartilage area to septal area and the maximal harvestable cartilage for grafting were calculated using the PAC (TM) program. Results. All the parameters were increased until adolescence. Thereafter, bony dorsal length, cartilage dorsal length, total dorsal length, total septal area and maximal harvestable cartilage for grafting have not changed significantly with age, while SC-NB overlap length, septal cartilage area, and proportion of the cartilage area to the total septal area were significantly decreased with age. The SC-NB overlap length was positively correlated with the septal cartilage area and the proportion of the cartilage area to the total septal area. Conclusion. The small septal cartilage area and its proportion to the total septal area were significantly correlated with a short overlap length of the septal cartilage under the nasal bone. Septal procedures should be carefully performed in the elderly due to the risk of incurring saddle nose.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available