Treatment outcomes of saddle nose correction.

IMPORTANCE: Many valuable classification schemes for saddle nose have been suggested that integrate clinical deformity and treatment; however, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable classification and surgical method for saddle nose correction.

OBJECTIVES: To present clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of saddle nose deformity and to propose a modified classification system to better characterize the variety of different saddle nose deformities.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The retrospective study included 91 patients who underwent rhinoplasty for correction of saddle nose from April 1, 2003, through December 31, 2011, with a minimum follow-up of 8 months. Saddle nose was classified into 4 types according to a modified classification.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Aesthetic outcomes were classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor.

RESULTS: Patients underwent minor cosmetic concealment by dorsal augmentation (n = 8) or major septal reconstruction combined with dorsal augmentation (n = 83). Autologous costal cartilages were used in 40 patients (44%), and homologous costal cartilages were used in 5 patients (6%). According to postoperative assessment, 29 patients had excellent, 42 patients had good, 18 patients had fair, and 2 patients had poor aesthetic outcomes. No statistical difference in surgical outcome according to saddle nose classification was observed. Eight patients underwent revision rhinoplasty, owing to recurrence of saddle, wound infection, or warping of the costal cartilage for dorsal augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a modified saddle nose classification scheme that is simpler and better able to characterize different deformities. Among 91 patients with saddle nose, 20 (22%) had unsuccessful outcomes (fair or poor) and 8 (9%) underwent subsequent revision rhinoplasty. Thus, management of saddle nose deformities remains challenging.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.