Prospective Evaluation of Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Conservative techniques have been developed in the field of rhinoplasty, focusing on limited tissue resection while emphasizing the reshaping of nasal structural elements. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to prospectively evaluate aesthetic and functional outcomes following Video-Assisted Rhino-Septoplasty (VARS) using validated tools. METHODS: Patients' self-reported outcomes were assessed before and 6 months after surgery. Aesthetic evaluations used FACE-Q Rhinoplasty modules (FQRM) Satisfaction with Nose and Nostrils. Functional evaluations were performed with NOSE scores. T-tests were used to determine the significance of the change in scores before and after surgery. p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included (sex ratio = 0.16, mean age = 30 y.o., 78% primary cases). All patients had associated septoplasties, and 32 had inferior turbinate reductions. Mean FQRM Nose scores were 28.1 ± 16.3 before vs. 83.4 ± 17.2/100 after surgery. Mean FQRM Nostrils scores were 61.5 ± 28.6 before vs. 85 ± 21/100 after surgery. Mean NOSE scores were 49.5 ± 36.3 before vs. 14.8 ± 16.6/100 after surgery. All p <0.001. We found no correlation between FQRM Nose and NOSE scores after surgery (ρ = -0.1553, IC95% (-0.41;0.12), p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that VARS is an effective technique, yielding high patient satisfaction in both aesthetic and functional outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Advancing the Era of Liquid Rhinoplasty: A Methodological Approach to Injection Protocols.

BACKGROUND: Liquid rhinoplasty, a non-surgical procedure using hyaluronic acid (HA) to reshape and refine the nose, has gained in popularity as an alternative to traditional surgical rhinoplasty although its results are not definitive. However, the lack of standardized injection protocols has raised concerns about treatment consistency and patient safety. OBJECTIVES: In this article, the authors propose a systematic protocol for the most common indications of liquid rhinoplasty. METHODS: By adopting a standardized methodology, healthcare professionals can enhance patient safety, improve treatment consistency, and optimize patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The protocol includes standardized injection sites categorized as dorsal, paramedian, tip and endonasal injections. Specific injection areas are recommended for different nasal shapes such as droopy noses, dorsal humps, nasal saddle deformity, inverted V deformity, tip shape abnormalities, twisted noses, revision cases with dorsal irregularities, and internal nasal valve dysfunction. While variations in filler dosages may be necessary based on individual patient needs, a conservative approach is recommended to maintain natural-looking results and reduce the risk of complications. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in non-surgical techniques for nasal refinement offers patients more options, and systematized injection protocols based on different nasal types provide a structured framework for liquid rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Reply to: "Invited Discussion on: Video Assisted Septo-Rhinoplasty, the Future of Endonasal Rhinoplasty-a Technical Note".

We respond to Gryskiewic and Alameddine's commentary on our recent study regarding endoscopic use in rhinoplasty. Highlighting the context-dependent nature of technique superiority, we discuss the alternative approach of Video Assisted Rhinoseptoplasty (VARS) in mitigating visible scarring concerns. Additionally, we emphasize the benefits of comparing closed procedures with and without endoscopic assistance, underscoring the advantages of optical utilization. Our perspective on nasal tip surgery advocates for enlarged marginal incisions to facilitate direct visual control, complementing our approach. Addressing concerns on the learning curve, we share insights from our training experience, stressing the feasibility of achieving proficiency with practice. Lastly, we acknowledge the need for surgical flexibility, particularly in cases of cartilaginous weakness, where alternative strategies like spreader grafts may be considered. Our response contributes to advancing rhinoplasty techniques, promoting context-driven approaches and adaptability for optimized outcomes.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Systematic review of cochlear implantation in patients with inner ear malformations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss due to inner ear malformations (IEMs) when compared to patients without IEMs. We discussed audiological outcomes such as open-set testing, closed-set testing, CAP score, and SIR score as well as postoperative outcomes such as cerebrospinal fluid gusher and incomplete insertion rate associated with cochlear implantation in individuals with IEMs. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. REVIEW METHODS: After screening a total of 222 studies, twelve eligible original articles were included in the review to analyze the speech and hearing outcomes of implanted patients with IEMs. Five reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. The "Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies" published by the CLARITY group was used to perform quality assessment on eligible studies. Systematic review registration number: CRD42021237489. RESULTS: IEMs are more likely to be associated with abnormal position of the facial nerve, raising the risk of intraoperative complications. These patients may benefit from cochlear implantation, but audiological outcomes may also be less favorable than in individuals without IEMs. Furthermore, due to the risk of cerebrospinal fluid gusher, incomplete insertion of electrodes, and postoperative facial nerve stimulation, surgeons can employ precautionary measures such as preoperative imaging and proper counseling. Postoperative imaging is suggested to be beneficial in ensuring proper electrode placement. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implants (CIs) have the potential to provide auditory rehabilitation to individuals with IEMs. Precise classification of the malformation, preoperative imaging and anatomical mapping, appropriate electrode selection, intra-operative techniques, and postoperative imaging are recommended in this population.

Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Patients with Neurosarcoidosis.

INTRODUCTION: Audiovestibular symptoms are rare in sarcoidosis, but they may also be the first manifestation of the disease. Sudden or progressive bilateral hearing loss is usually associated with vestibular impairment. The mechanism of hearing loss remains unclear, but clinical presentation and magnetic resonance imaging suggest a retrocochlear site for the lesion in most patients. Several cases of hearing recovery after corticosteroid treatment have been reported. In patients with severe or profound hearing loss, the benefit of cochlear implantation is challenging to predict in the case of auditory neuropathy and is rarely described. We present a case series of cochlear implantation in patients with documented neurosarcoidosis. RESULTS: Seven cases of cochlear implantation in 4 patients with neurosarcoidosis are reported. All of the patients showed a great improvement very quickly in both quiet and noise. Speech performance remained stable over time with a follow-up ranging from 4 to 11 years, even in patients who had disease exacerbation. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation is possible in deaf patients with neurosarcoidosis. The excellent benefit obtained in our patients suggests a particular type of neuropathy, but endocochlear involvement cannot be entirely ruled out.