Postoperative Differences in Dorsal Aesthetic Lines in Patients Undergoing Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty and Conventional Hump Resection.

Journal: Aesthetic surgery journal
Published Date: Jul 15, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and conventional hump resection techniques (CHR) are 2 distinct methods for nasal hump reduction, affecting dorsal aesthetic lines (DALs) and midvault stability differently. There is limited existing evidence regarding variations in DALs width, between these techniques. OBJECTIVES: To quantify DALs width variations and compare functional and aesthetic outcomes between DPR and CHR techniques in primary rhinoplasty patients. METHODS: A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted, including 30 patients who underwent DPR and 40 patients who underwent CHR. An artificial intelligence-driven analysis tool was employed to measure preoperative and postoperative DALs and axis angle changes. The SCHNOS (Sino-Nasal Outcome Test) was utilized to evaluate functional and aesthetic outcomes. RESULTS: The width of DALs at the midnose level increased significantly in both groups (DPR group: 8.835-10.120 mm; CHR group: 9.383-10.100 mm), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .089). SCHNOS-C scores indicated significant postoperative aesthetic improvement in all subgroups (P < .001), with differences surpassing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID). In the combined cosmetic functional subgroup, postoperative SCHNOS-O scores decreased significantly in both groups (P < .001), with improvement exceeding the MCID. Nasal axis deviation angles significantly decreased postoperatively in both DPR (1.715-1.207, P = .008) and CHR groups (1.446-0.751, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Both DPR and CHR techniques effectively improve nasal aesthetics and function, with widening of DALs observed in both groups. The use of artificial intelligence technology for assessing DALs offers a valuable tool for objective evaluation in rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3: (Therapeutic) For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Authors

  • Lianji Xu
    Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
  • Haoge Huang
    Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Cherian K Kandathil
    Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
  • Elizabeth S Longino
    Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Eric Wei
    Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
  • Sam P Most
    Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Keywords

No keywords available for this article.

External Resources

Popular Topics
Recent Journals