Cited by 76Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCleft Lip and Palate ResearchReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques

Nasal Airway Preservation Using the Autospreader Technique: Analysis of Outcomes Using a Disease-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument

Yoo, Sirius·2011·Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the efficacy of a specific midvault reconstruction technique (the autospreader flap) in dorsal reductive rhinoplasty with a validated quality-of-life instrument. DESIGN: A prospective observational outcomes study of patients desiring reduction of the nasal dorsum who either (1) had no breathing obstruction, who underwent purely aesthetic rhinoplasty, or (2) had concomitant severe nasal obstruction due to septal deviation, internal valve narrowing, and/or turbinate hypertrophy, who subsequently underwent combined functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation was performed using the Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients completed preoperative and postoperative evaluation. No complications occurred. Patients in the purely aesthetic group were noted to have low preoperative NOSE scores, with no change postoperatively. There was a significant improvement in mean NOSE score postoperatively for the combined functional and aesthetic group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Midvault reconstruction using the autospreader graft may help prevent postoperative nasal obstruction due to midvault collapse. Combining this procedure with dorsal reduction in functional rhinoplasty patients with traditional airway reconstruction techniques is effective in improving nasal airway function as measured by a patient-based, disease-specific quality-of-life instrument.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archfacial.2011.7

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Auto-spreader flap avoids harvesting and carving cartilage for grafting from other locations.

    “This technique avoids harvesting and carving cartilage for grafting from other locations [29, 36].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoo, S.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Yoo, Sirius
Venue
Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery
Published
2011-07-01
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
231
ISSN
1521-2491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098161490
Cited by
76
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Keywords
nasal obstruction, septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, quality of life, functional rhinoplasty, aesthetic rhinoplasty
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Nose, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Rhinoplasty, Nasal Obstruction, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review