Reconstruction of the distal anatomical parts of the nose — analysis of cosmetic results

Objective. To analyze cosmetic results in reconstruction of defects in the distal anatomical parts of the nose.

Materials and methods. The results of 103 reconstructions in patients with acquired defects of the external nose with loss of distal anatomical parts were studied. The evaluation of cosmetic results was performed using a 5-point scale of the NAFEQ (Nasal Appearance and Function Evaluation Questionnaire). Complication rate and assessments in groups with median and lateral localization of the defect (33 and 70 patients, respectively) depending on the method of reconstruction were compared.

Results. Complication rate in the reconstruction of median defects (4 cases, 12.1%) and lateral defects (2 cases, 2.9%) did not have a statistically significant difference (Fisher’s exact two-tailed test, p=0.066). With median defects, a decrease in assessment of cosmetic results was more often noted in indications of “nasal tip”, “nasal alar”, and “nasal back”; with lateral defects – “nostril size”, “nasal alar”, “nasal back”. The estimates of the tip and back of the nose were statistically significantly higher after the reconstruction of lateral defects than median ones, p=0.004 and p<0.001, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the estimates of the nasal alar and the nostril size. The indicator “total appearance of the nose” did not have a statistically significant difference in the groups, p=0.129. The results for the indicators “nostrilя size”, “color of the outer nose”, “total appearance of the nose” were statistically significantly higher when using a puzzle flap compared with alternative methods. The estimates of the “nasal tip” index were statistically significantly higher following reconstruction with a frontal flap compared with nasal flaps.

Conclusion. The complication rate in the reconstruction of the distal subunits of the nose was 5.8% and had no difference in the median and lateral localizations of the defect. Cosmetic results differed when assessed by individual measures. The assessment of the total appearance of the nose had no significant difference in the median and lateral localizations of the defect. The use of a puzzle flap and a forehead flap presented better results for the particular subunits.

1. Austin GK, Shockley WW. Reconstruction of nasal defects: contemporary approaches. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;24(5):453-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000295

2. Halani SH, Ma C, Pierce J, Sanniec K, Thornton JF. Nasal Reconstruction after Mohs Cancer Resection: Lessons Learned from 2553 Consecutive Cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(1):171-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008098

3. Singh DJ, Bartlett SP. Nasal Reconstruction: Aesthetic and Functional Considerations for Alar Defects. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2003;19(1):19-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-39128

4. Chang JS, Becker SS, Park SS. Nasal reconstruction: the state of the art. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery 2004;12:336-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.moo.0000134830.38177.ad

5. Driscoll BP, Baker SR. Reconstruction of nasal alar defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001:91-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.3.2.91

6. Shumrick KA, Campbell A, Becker FF, Papel ID. Modification of the subunit principle for reconstruction of nasal tip and dorsum defects. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 1999;1(1):9-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.1.1.9

7. Cerci FB, Nguyen TH. Nasolabial interpolation flap for alar reconstruction after Mohs micrographic surgery. Surg Cosmet Dermatol. 2014;6(2):113-120.

8. Yong JS, Christophel JJ, Park SS. Repair of Intermediate-Size Nasal Defects: A Working Algorithm. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(11):1027-1033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2014.2258

9. Smith H, Elliot H, Vinciullo C. Repair of Nasal Tip and Alar Defects Using Cheek-Based 2-Stage FlapsAn Alternative to the Median Forehead Flap. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(8):1033-1036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.139.8.1033

10. Ortins-Pina A, Teixeira AI, Sanches M, Gouveia AI, Filipe PL, Silva JM. Nasal Ala Reconstruction: Surgical Conundrum. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2017;10(1):55-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_130_16

11. Ivanov SA, Savenko YuN. The reconstruction of the wing of the nose with the use of the plastic material based on the modified puzzle flap. Russian Rhinology. 2017;25(4):30-34. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17116/rosrino201725330-34

12. Albertini JG, Hansen JP. Trilobed Flap Reconstruction for Distal Nasal Skin Defects. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36:1726-1735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01671.x

13. Moolenburgh SE. Psychological, Functional and Aesthetic Outcome after Nasal Reconstruction. Rotterdam: lpskamp Drukkers BV; 2009. – 160 pp.

14. Moro-Bolado F, Carmona-Rodríguez M, Alwattar-Ceballos O, Martínez-Montalvo L, Rogel-Vence M, Sánchez-Caminero P, Romero-Aguilera G. Tunneled Island Flaps for the Reconstruction of Nasal Defects: A 21-Case Series. J Clin Med. 2023;12:7473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237473

15. Bilal M, Ullah I, Ehsanullah. Nasolabial Flap: A Workhorse for The Reconstruction Of Nasal Ala After Tumor Resection. JKCD. 2014;5(1):10-15.