Objective:To investigate the surgical effect of pedicled upper lip mucosal flap in repairing nasal septal mucosal defects after rhinoplasty.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed from January 2016 to October 2022, the clinical data of patients with nasal septal mucosal defects after rhinoplasty were collected in the Department of Plastic and Aesthetic (Burn) Surgery at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The pedicled upper lip mucosal flap was utilized for repair based on the patient’s medical history and wound condition. The pedicle of the flap was designed 1 cm adjacent to the frenulum of the upper lip, and an appropriate flap was incised based on the size of the wound, with dissection performed up to the superficial layer of the orbicularis oris muscle. The dissection establishes an upper lip tunnel that connects the gingival-buccal groove to the nasal cavity. The pedicled upper lip mucosal flap was elevated and transposed into the nasal cavity via the upper lip tunnel. The position of the flap was adjusted to ensure complete coverage and fixation of the nasal septal defect wound using 5-0 absorbable suture. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale were utilized to facilitate patients’ satisfaction evaluation and assessment of nasal obstruction symptoms before surgery and at 6 months post-surgery. The VAS total score was 10 points, with higher scores indicating greater levels of patient satisfaction. The NOSE scale comprises of 5 items, each assigned a score ranging from 0 to 4, denoting absence of symptoms, very mild presence, moderate intensity, relatively severe manifestation, and highly severe indication respectively. The measurement data of VAS and NOSE scores before surgery and at 6 months post-surgery was expressed by Mean±SD, using paired t-test. The score distribution of the NOSE scale was represented by the number of cases, using Mann-Whitney U test. Results:The study included a total of 15 female patients, with an average age of (27.6±2.9) years (ranging from 23 to 33 years). Eleven cases presented with preoperative cartilage exposure, and the size of tissue defect ranged from 0.9 cm×0.5 cm to 1.5 cm×0.7 cm. Nine patients had a history of smoking. Skin grafting was performed in 9 patients, while nasal mucosal metastasis was observed in 8 patients. The dimensions of the flap varied from 4.0 cm×1.2 cm to 7.0 cm×1.5 cm. The postoperative recovery was satisfactory, with successful survival of the skin flaps and no occurrences of infection, hematoma, wound dehiscence, or flap necrosis. The average duration of follow-up was (8.2±2.1) months (ranging from 6 to 12 months). The postoperative VAS score (7.73±0.88) was significantly higher compared to the preoperative score (1.86±0.74) ( P<0.01). Additionally, the postoperative NOSE score (4.66±1.71) showed a significant decrease from the preoperative score (10.73±2.68), with a statistically significant difference ( P<0.01). Among them, after surgery items of stuffy or unbreathable nose (2 cases vs. 15 cases), nasal obstruction (1 case vs. 14 cases), and feeling that the nose was not enough to breathe during exercise or exertion (4 cases vs. 14 cases) scored≥2 points were significantly less than those before operation (all P<0.01). Conclusion:The utilization of pedicled upper lip mucosal flap in the reconstruction of severe nasal septal mucosal defects following rhinoplasty has proven to be highly effective. The postoperative satisfaction of patients is remarkably high, the ventilation function exhibits significant improvement, and no severe complications are observed.

Objective:To investigate the surgical effect of pedicled upper lip mucosal flap in repairing nasal septal mucosal defects after rhinoplasty.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed from January 2016 to October 2022, the clinical data of patients with nasal septal mucosal defects after rhinoplasty were collected in the Department of Plastic and Aesthetic (Burn) Surgery at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The pedicled upper lip mucosal flap was utilized for repair based on the patient’s medical history and wound condition. The pedicle of the flap was designed 1 cm adjacent to the frenulum of the upper lip, and an appropriate flap was incised based on the size of the wound, with dissection performed up to the superficial layer of the orbicularis oris muscle. The dissection establishes an upper lip tunnel that connects the gingival-buccal groove to the nasal cavity. The pedicled upper lip mucosal flap was elevated and transposed into the nasal cavity via the upper lip tunnel. The position of the flap was adjusted to ensure complete coverage and fixation of the nasal septal defect wound using 5-0 absorbable suture. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale were utilized to facilitate patients’ satisfaction evaluation and assessment of nasal obstruction symptoms before surgery and at 6 months post-surgery. The VAS total score was 10 points, with higher scores indicating greater levels of patient satisfaction. The NOSE scale comprises of 5 items, each assigned a score ranging from 0 to 4, denoting absence of symptoms, very mild presence, moderate intensity, relatively severe manifestation, and highly severe indication respectively. The measurement data of VAS and NOSE scores before surgery and at 6 months post-surgery was expressed by Mean±SD, using paired t-test. The score distribution of the NOSE scale was represented by the number of cases, using Mann-Whitney U test. Results:The study included a total of 15 female patients, with an average age of (27.6±2.9) years (ranging from 23 to 33 years). Eleven cases presented with preoperative cartilage exposure, and the size of tissue defect ranged from 0.9 cm×0.5 cm to 1.5 cm×0.7 cm. Nine patients had a history of smoking. Skin grafting was performed in 9 patients, while nasal mucosal metastasis was observed in 8 patients. The dimensions of the flap varied from 4.0 cm×1.2 cm to 7.0 cm×1.5 cm. The postoperative recovery was satisfactory, with successful survival of the skin flaps and no occurrences of infection, hematoma, wound dehiscence, or flap necrosis. The average duration of follow-up was (8.2±2.1) months (ranging from 6 to 12 months). The postoperative VAS score (7.73±0.88) was significantly higher compared to the preoperative score (1.86±0.74) ( P<0.01). Additionally, the postoperative NOSE score (4.66±1.71) showed a significant decrease from the preoperative score (10.73±2.68), with a statistically significant difference ( P<0.01). Among them, after surgery items of stuffy or unbreathable nose (2 cases vs. 15 cases), nasal obstruction (1 case vs. 14 cases), and feeling that the nose was not enough to breathe during exercise or exertion (4 cases vs. 14 cases) scored≥2 points were significantly less than those before operation (all P<0.01). Conclusion:The utilization of pedicled upper lip mucosal flap in the reconstruction of severe nasal septal mucosal defects following rhinoplasty has proven to be highly effective. The postoperative satisfaction of patients is remarkably high, the ventilation function exhibits significant improvement, and no severe complications are observed.

At present, nasal abnormalities is often classified from different perspectives, such as the alar-columella relationship, nasal base width, and the condition of alar hyperplasia. However, due to the impact of race and region, different people may be applied to different classification methods, resulting in different clinical diagnosis and treatments. So far, there is no unified standard for alar deformity classification to guide clinical treatment. In alar-columella relationship, the retracted ala and the hanging columella, hanging ala and retracted columella are easily confused. According to the classification of nasal base width, it is easy to confuse the alar flare with wide alar base. Therefore, the accurate preoperative evaluation of the nasal ala and the selection of appropriate clinical treatments for different abnormalities are beneficial for surgeons to achieve perfect rhinoplasty results.
Cleft Lip ; Humans ; Hyperplasia ; Nasal Septum/surgery* ; Nose ; Preoperative Care ; Rhinoplasty/methods*

Objective:To evaluate the structural features, stability and postoperative effect of integrated framework, 1+ 1 framework, 2+ 1 framework, 4+ 1 framework, and Y-shaped nasal framework.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed based on the clinical data of patients underwent in Department of Plastic and Aesthetic (Burn) Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University from February 2019 to November 2020. According to rhinoplasty framework, the patients were divided into integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, 2+ 1 framework group, 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group. Based on the principle of plane photography, the stability of the nasal framework was evaluated by measuring the nasal tip projection and the nasolabial angle 1 month after surgery, and 12 months after surgery. The satisfaction of patients and the incidence of postoperative complications were collected. The difference in nasolabial angle and nasal tip projection data of postoperation 1 month and postoperative 12 months among each group were analyzed by one-way analysis vaniance or Kruskal-Waliis H test.Bonferroni test or Nemenyi test was used for pairwise comparison between groups. P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 201 patients (18 males and 183 females, aged 18-46 years, average aged 26.6±5.9 years)were included in this study and followed up for 12-21 months. There were 45 patients in the integrated framework group, 45 patients in the 1+ 1 framework group, 34 patients in the 2+ 1 framework group, 35 patients in the 4+ 1 framework group, and 42 patients in the Y-shaped framework group. Four patients with Y-shaped framework had significant nasal tip supination 12 months after surgery. Among the patients with 1+ 1 framework, 1 patient showed slight columella distortion 6 months after surgery, and 3 patients showed significant nasal tip subrotation 12 months after surgery. One patient in 2+ 1 framework group developed nasal infection 92 days after surgery. No complications were found in other groups during follow-up. In terms of nasal tip projection during postoperative follow-up, the median difference of nasal tip projection between 12 months and 1 month after surgery in 2+ 1 framework group, integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, and 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group was -0.08 cm, -0.09 cm, -0.20 cm, -0.10 cm and -0.17 cm, respectively. The difference of nasal tip projection among the five groups was statistically significant ( P<0.01). The difference between 2+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant( P<0.05). The difference between 4+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between integrated nasal framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between Y-shaped framework group and 1+ 1 framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). In terms of nasolabial angle during postoperative follow-up, the median difference of nasolabial angle between 12 months and 1 month after surgery in 2+ 1 framework group, integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, and 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group was -4.20°, -3.80°, -6.50°, -4.10° and -6.35°, respectively. The difference of nasolabial angle among the five groups was statistically significant ( P<0.01). The difference between 2+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant( P<0.05). The difference between 4+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between integrated nasal framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). Patient satisfaction evaluation, 2+ 1 framework group had the highest satisfaction(34/34, 100.00%), followed by 4+ 1 framework group (34/35, 97.14%), integrated framework group(42/45, 93.33%), Y-shaped framework group(36/42, 85.71%), 1+ 1 framework group(37/45, 82.22%). Conclusion:The changes of nasolabial angle and nasal tip projection in 2+ 1 framework, integrated framework, and 4+ 1 framework were smaller than those in Y-shaped framework and 1+ 1 framework.2+ 1 framework was convenient and had good postoperative stability and high patient satisfaction.

Objective:To evaluate the structural features, stability and postoperative effect of integrated framework, 1+ 1 framework, 2+ 1 framework, 4+ 1 framework, and Y-shaped nasal framework.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed based on the clinical data of patients underwent in Department of Plastic and Aesthetic (Burn) Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University from February 2019 to November 2020. According to rhinoplasty framework, the patients were divided into integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, 2+ 1 framework group, 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group. Based on the principle of plane photography, the stability of the nasal framework was evaluated by measuring the nasal tip projection and the nasolabial angle 1 month after surgery, and 12 months after surgery. The satisfaction of patients and the incidence of postoperative complications were collected. The difference in nasolabial angle and nasal tip projection data of postoperation 1 month and postoperative 12 months among each group were analyzed by one-way analysis vaniance or Kruskal-Waliis H test.Bonferroni test or Nemenyi test was used for pairwise comparison between groups. P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 201 patients (18 males and 183 females, aged 18-46 years, average aged 26.6±5.9 years)were included in this study and followed up for 12-21 months. There were 45 patients in the integrated framework group, 45 patients in the 1+ 1 framework group, 34 patients in the 2+ 1 framework group, 35 patients in the 4+ 1 framework group, and 42 patients in the Y-shaped framework group. Four patients with Y-shaped framework had significant nasal tip supination 12 months after surgery. Among the patients with 1+ 1 framework, 1 patient showed slight columella distortion 6 months after surgery, and 3 patients showed significant nasal tip subrotation 12 months after surgery. One patient in 2+ 1 framework group developed nasal infection 92 days after surgery. No complications were found in other groups during follow-up. In terms of nasal tip projection during postoperative follow-up, the median difference of nasal tip projection between 12 months and 1 month after surgery in 2+ 1 framework group, integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, and 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group was -0.08 cm, -0.09 cm, -0.20 cm, -0.10 cm and -0.17 cm, respectively. The difference of nasal tip projection among the five groups was statistically significant ( P<0.01). The difference between 2+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant( P<0.05). The difference between 4+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between integrated nasal framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between Y-shaped framework group and 1+ 1 framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). In terms of nasolabial angle during postoperative follow-up, the median difference of nasolabial angle between 12 months and 1 month after surgery in 2+ 1 framework group, integrated framework group, 1+ 1 framework group, and 4+ 1 framework group, and Y-shaped framework group was -4.20°, -3.80°, -6.50°, -4.10° and -6.35°, respectively. The difference of nasolabial angle among the five groups was statistically significant ( P<0.01). The difference between 2+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant( P<0.05). The difference between 4+ 1 framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). The difference between integrated nasal framework group and 1+ 1 framework group or Y-shaped framework group was statistically significant ( P<0.05). Patient satisfaction evaluation, 2+ 1 framework group had the highest satisfaction(34/34, 100.00%), followed by 4+ 1 framework group (34/35, 97.14%), integrated framework group(42/45, 93.33%), Y-shaped framework group(36/42, 85.71%), 1+ 1 framework group(37/45, 82.22%). Conclusion:The changes of nasolabial angle and nasal tip projection in 2+ 1 framework, integrated framework, and 4+ 1 framework were smaller than those in Y-shaped framework and 1+ 1 framework.2+ 1 framework was convenient and had good postoperative stability and high patient satisfaction.