A comparison of nasal anthropometric measurements in septorhinoplasty patiensts and volunteers without a request for septorhinoplasty

A Comparison of Nasal Anthropometric Measurements in Septorhinoplasty Patiensts and Volunteers without A Request for Septorhinoplasty Aim: The aim of this study is to perform nasal anthropometric measurements of patients who have a request for septorinoplasty and to compare the results of facial aesthetic analysis with those who do not have a request for septorinoplasty and with ideal nasal profile measurements defined in the literature. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, clinical study, 38 patients who referred to Otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic of Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine between December 2019 and March 2020 with a request for aesthetic nose surgery and 32 volunteers without a history of nasal trauma and request for aesthetic nose surgery were enrolled. Demographic data of the patients including age, gender, height and weight were recorded. Anthropometric nasal measurements of the patients were calculated by using standard profile photographs. Using these images, nose length, interalar width, intercanthal distance, width and length ratio, nasofrontal and nasolabial angle, nasal tip projection and nasofacial angle measurements were calculated with the Rhinobase software program by using the surface soft tissue landmarks. Results: Forty-one patients of the study group were male, and 29 were female. The average age was 27.6 years. In the patient group, the average nasal length was 49.2 ± 5.0 mm, interalar width 36.0 ± 3.7 mm, intercanthal distance 29.0 ± 3.0 mm, width / length ratio 0.73 ± 0.06, nasofrontal angle 151 ° ± 6.8 °, nasolabial angle 95.9 ° ± 15.2 °, nasofacial angle 29 ° ± 3.3°, tip projection (Simon ratio) was 0.55 ± 0.13. In the control group, the average nasal length was 44.7 ± 5.2 mm , interalar width 37.2 ± 2.2 mm, intercantal distance 31.0 ± 2.5 mm, width / length ratio 0.84 ± 0.08, nasofrontal angle 146 ° ± 5.7 °, nasolabial angle 104.8 ° ±14.9 °, nasofacial angle 30.9 ° ± 3.2 °, tip projection (Simon ratio) was determined as 0.63 ±0.11. Conclusion: According to the results of our study, nasal length and nasofrontal angle were found to be larger, intercanthal distance, interalar width, nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle and Simon ratio were smaller in rhinoplasty candidates. In our study, unlike the ideal nasal profile measurements of the literature, intercanthal distance and interalar distance were not equal in both groups. Nasolabial angle values are within the ideal range for both groups. Nasofrontal angle measurement was found to be larger than the ideal values defined in the literature in both groups. Key words: nasal anthropometry, septorhinoplasty