Dorsal Preservation versus Component Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: An Assessment of Patient-reported Outcomes

Abstract

Background:. The literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) discussing dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and component dorsal hump reduction (CDHR) is scarce. This study aims to fill the gap in PROs between these techniques. Methods:. A systematic review was conducted to investigate PROs of DPR and CDHR. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted using Stata statistical software. Results:. A total of 25 studies met our inclusion criteria, pooling 1706 participants, with 13 studies on CDHP and 12 studies on DPR. Overall satisfaction rates were high, varying from 84% to 100% across studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that both techniques exhibited equally high satisfaction with no statistical differences (P = 0.18). A random-effects model revealed that about two of 100 treated patients underwent revisions across our cohort (95% interquartile range: 0–4). Notably, the CDHR technique was associated with a significant 53.7-point reduction in the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS)-cosmetic domain [95% confidence interval (CI): −62.7 to −44.8, P < 0.001], along with a meaningful improvement in SCHNOS-obstructive scores by −27.3 points (95% CI: −50.5 to −4.04, P = 0.02). Conversely, the DPR was linked to a 55.3-point reduction in the SCHNOS-cosmetic domain (95% CI: −60.7 to −49.9, P < 0.001), and a −19.5 point change in the SCHNOS-obstructive domain (95% CI: −27.9 to −11.1, P < 0.001). Conclusion:. Although PROs are comparable, the literature suggests that CDHR outcomes may be better than DPR in alleviating obstructive symptoms, potentially offering an evidence-based choice for addressing functional concerns in rhinoplasty.