Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T08:47:37.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Early surgical intervention for nasal deformity in Binder's syndrome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

B Baser*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences (‘SAIMS’), Indore, India Department of ENT, Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, India Department of ENT, Akash Hospital, Indore, India
P Singh
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Akash Hospital, Indore, India
P Surana
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences (‘SAIMS’), Indore, India
P K Roy
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences (‘SAIMS’), Indore, India
P Chaubey
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Akash Hospital, Indore, India Department of ENT, Civil Hospital, Panchkula, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Brajendra Baser, Department of ENT, Akash Hospital, Bicholi Mardana Main Road, Indore 452016, Madhya Pradesh, India E-mail: baserbv@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To assess benefits of surgical intervention at an early age and focus on surgical techniques using exclusively autologous cartilage grafts.

Methods

Five children aged 8–15 years, treated between March 2016 and 2020, underwent augmentation rhinoplasty using autologous cartilage, with post-operative follow up ranging from 1.5 to 2 years. Photographs and Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire scores were examined.

Results

Augmentation was achieved without complications. No restricted skin or mucosal pockets were encountered. Patients showed improved confidence and perspective with regard to self-image, and were less socially self-conscious. There was significant improvement in all Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire scores.

Conclusion

Early surgery allows augmentation with easier release of skin and mucosal pockets, and without the tension otherwise encountered if primary augmentation is performed at a later age. It offers a chance to improve confidence and self-perception in a growing child conscious about their appearance, which may make them socially withdrawn. Autologous cartilage gives better results than bone grafts, and is comparable with silicone but without its complications.

Information

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Comparative pre- and post-operative photographs of a revision case at two years’ follow up: (a) pre-operative frontal view; (b) post-operative frontal view; (c) pre-operative left oblique view; (d) post-operative left oblique view; (e) pre-operative basal view; and (f) post-operative basal view. Published with patient's permission.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Comparative pre- and post-operative photographs of a primary case at two years’ follow up: (a) pre-operative frontal view; (b) post-operative frontal view; (c) pre-operative right oblique view; (d) post-operative right oblique view; (e) pre-operative basal view; and (f) post-operative basal view. Published with patient's permission.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Comparative pre- and post-operative photographs of a primary case at two years’ follow up: (a) pre-operative frontal view; (b) post-operative frontal view; (c) pre-operative left lateral view; (d) post-operative left lateral view; (e) pre-operative basal view; and (f) post-operative basal view. Published with patient's permission.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Comparative pre- and post-operative photographs of a revision case at 1.5 years’ follow up: (a) pre-operative frontal view; (b) post-operative frontal view; (c) pre-operative right oblique view; (d) post-operative right oblique view; (e) pre-operative basal view; and (f) post-operative basal view. Published with patient's permission.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Comparative pre- and post-operative photographs of a primary case at 1.5 years’ follow up: (a) on-table pre-operative right lateral view; (b) on-table post-operative right lateral view; (c) pre-operative frontal view; (d) post-operative frontal view; (e) pre-operative left lateral view; and (f) post-operative left lateral view. Published with patient's permission.

Figure 5

Table 1. Comparison of pre- and post-operative Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation scores