WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Thu, Oct 15, 2026
[Archive]
Volume 15, Issue 2 (2026)
WJPS 2026, 15(2): 31-38 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hajirahimi M, Abbasi R, Jahanshahi J, Doosti-Irani A. Investigating the Effect of Bilateral Facial Repositioning Using a Mattress Suture to Correct a Very Wide Alar Base in Rhinoplasty. WJPS 2026; 15 (2) :31-38
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1680-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1680-en.html
1- Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,hamru58@hotmail.com
3- Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,
3- Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract: (439 Views)
Background: In recent years, the prevalence of various rhinoplasty procedures has increased. Alar base reduction (ABR) techniques are utilized in approximately 15–20% of these patients. Major studies indicate that under correction of alar base is a primary cause of patient dissatisfaction and suboptimal outcomes. We aimed to compare conventional bilateral ABR with a modified technique involving bilateral facial repositioning (bilateral facial medial advancement) using a mattress suture (BFR-mattress).
Methods: Forty-two septorhinoplasty candidates requiring ABR were enrolled into two groups: a control group (conventional bilateral ABR) and an intervention group (ABR with BFR-mattress). Standardized photographic documentation was obtained preoperatively and at the 6-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed based on patient-reported satisfaction and evaluations by blinded independent surgeon.
Results: No significant differences were found between the groups in demographic parameters (age, sex distribution; P > 0.05). Preoperative interalar-to-intercanthal ratios were comparable between the groups (Control: 1.21 ± 0.12, Intervention: 1.20 ± 0.06; P= 0.885). At 6 months, the intervention group exhibited significantly lower ratios (1.13 ± 0.09 [in control group] vs. 1.04 ± 0.07 [in intervention group]; P = 0.003), indicating more narrowing of the alar base. Notably, despite achieving greater alar base reduction, the BFR-mattress technique resulted in comparable outcomes in nasal obstruction, symmetry and scar appearance.
Conclusion: The BFR-mattress suture technique provides significantly greater alar base width reduction compared to conventional ABR, without increasing complication rates.
Methods: Forty-two septorhinoplasty candidates requiring ABR were enrolled into two groups: a control group (conventional bilateral ABR) and an intervention group (ABR with BFR-mattress). Standardized photographic documentation was obtained preoperatively and at the 6-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed based on patient-reported satisfaction and evaluations by blinded independent surgeon.
Results: No significant differences were found between the groups in demographic parameters (age, sex distribution; P > 0.05). Preoperative interalar-to-intercanthal ratios were comparable between the groups (Control: 1.21 ± 0.12, Intervention: 1.20 ± 0.06; P= 0.885). At 6 months, the intervention group exhibited significantly lower ratios (1.13 ± 0.09 [in control group] vs. 1.04 ± 0.07 [in intervention group]; P = 0.003), indicating more narrowing of the alar base. Notably, despite achieving greater alar base reduction, the BFR-mattress technique resulted in comparable outcomes in nasal obstruction, symmetry and scar appearance.
Conclusion: The BFR-mattress suture technique provides significantly greater alar base width reduction compared to conventional ABR, without increasing complication rates.
References
1. Wang X, Deng Y, Sun Y, Xiong X, Meng X, Li W, et al. A novel classification of alar retraction based on nostril exposure in Asian rhinoplasty. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2023;124(1):101337. [DOI:10.1016/j.jormas.2022.11.013]
2. Rahman A. Cultural perspectives on rhinoplasty: trends around the world. Online J Otolaryngol 2024;14(6):417-18.
3. Ali AE, Shehata EM, Hegazy HM, Ebeid KA. Functional and aesthetic outcomes of alar base reduction. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2025;41(1):3. [DOI:10.1186/s43163-024-00747-6]
4. Uzun A, Ozdemir F. Morphometric analysis of nasal shapes and angles in young adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2014;80(5):397-402. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.07.010]
5. Lima LF, Arroyo HH, Jurado JR. Update in alar base reduction in rhinoplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;24(4):316-321. [DOI:10.1097/MOO.0000000000000277]
6. Kim JH, Park JP, Jang YJ. Aesthetic outcomes of alar base resection in Asian patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016;18(6):462-466. [DOI:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.0800]
7. Dickie SR, Adamson PA, Warner JP. Alar base reduction. In: Shiffman M, Di Giuseppe A, editors. Advanced Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 425-434. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-28053-5_31]
8. Gandolfi S, Laloze J, Chaput B, et al. Nostril surgery: indications, surgical procedures and outcomes-a systematic review of published cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020;44:2219-2229. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-020-01911-y]
9. Choi JY. Alar base reduction and alar-columellar relationship. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2018;26:367-375. [DOI:10.1016/j.fsc.2018.03.010]
10. Casanueva F, Gerecci D. Objective comparison of nasal tip contours in the basal view between dome binding and hemitransdomal tip suture techniques in rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016;18(6):481-487. [DOI:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1061]
11. Gruber RP. Nasal base reduction: an updated technique. Aesthetic Surg J 2002;22(3):289-291. [DOI:10.1067/maj.2002.124712]
12. Khan MA, Jomah M, Assiri H, Alolaywi A, Alarfaj A. Modified alar base reduction: a novel technique. J Craniofac Surg 2023;34(7):e715-e717. [DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000009677]
13. Abdelkader R, El-Noamany S, Taha A, Raafat SS. Alar flare preservation using the sandwich technique as an adjunct to alar base reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2021;9(5):e3569. [DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003569]
14. Kamburoglu HO. A new alar base reduction technique in rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 2025;49:1074-1079. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-024-04248-y]
15. Choi JY. Complications of alar base reduction in Asians. J Cosmet Med 2023;7(1):9-12. [DOI:10.25056/JCM.2023.7.1.9]
16. Ritto FG, Medeiros PJ, de Moraes M, Ribeiro DP. Comparative analysis of two different alar base sutures after Le Fort I osteotomy: randomized double-blind controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111(2):181-189. [DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.04.019]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
