WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Sat, Sep 5, 2026
[Archive]
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
2- Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,
Abstract: (7 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.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Special
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
