Advertisement

Factors related to successful closed nasal bone reduction: a longitudinal cohort study

      Abstract

      Fracture of the nasal bone is the most common facial fracture because the nose is the most protruding part of the facial skeleton. Standard treatment is nasal reduction, which may cause patients significant pain and stress. Closed nasal reduction may be unsuccessful because of old fractures, despite physical examination being compatible with a new fracture. This study aimed to investigate factors influencing the success of closed nasal reduction. A total of 80 patients with isolated nasal bone fractures who opted for closed reduction under local anaesthesia were included. Demographic features, days from trauma, and findings of physical examination and lateral nasal X-rays were assessed. Significant nasal bone movement with significant improvement in the deformity was considered a successful reduction. An absence of, or minimal, nasal bone movement was considered unsuccessful. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 28.4 (11.5) the youngest being 15. A total of 56 patients had successful nasal reduction. Younger age (p = 0.021), absence of periorbital ecchymosis (p = 0.042), and no fracture line on lateral nasal X-ray (p = 0.000), were associated with unsuccessful reduction. Although lateral nasal X-ray is not considered a good instrument for diagnosis of a nasal fracture, this study has shown that the absence of a fracture line on a lateral nasal X-ray can be a predictor for unsuccessful reduction in patients older than 15 years.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sindi A.
        • Abaalkhail Y.
        • Malas M.
        • et al.
        Patients with nasal fracture.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2020; 31: e275-e277
        • Erdmann D.
        • Follmar K.E.
        • Debruijn M.
        • et al.
        A retrospective analysis of facial fracture etiologies.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2008; 60: 398-403
        • Alvi A.
        • Doherty T.
        • Lewen G.
        Facial fractures and concomitant injuries in trauma patients.
        Laryngoscope. 2003; 113: 102-106
        • Lalloo R.
        • Lucchesi L.R.
        • Bisignano C.
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of facial fractures: incidence, prevalence and years lived with disability estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study.
        Inj Prev. 2020; 26: i27-i35
        • Flint P.W.
        • Haughey B.H.
        • Robbins K.T.
        • et al.
        Cummings otolaryngology: head and neck surgery e-book.
        6th ed. Saunders, 2014
        • Kayiran O.
        • Calli C.
        The effect of periorbital cooling on pain, edema and ecchymosis after rhinoplasty: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded study.
        Rhinology. 2016; 54: 32-37
        • Reilly M.J.
        • Davison S.P.
        Open vs closed approach to the nasal pyramid for fracture reduction.
        Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007; 9: 82-86
        • Yang T.H.
        • Fang C.L.
        • Tsai C.B.
        • et al.
        Precisely closed reduction of nasal bone fracture assisted with plain film measurements under the picture archiving and communication system.
        Ear Nose Throat J. 2021; (1455613211012111. Epub ahead of print)https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613211012111
        • Hwang K.
        • You S.H.
        • Kim S.G.
        • et al.
        Analysis of nasal bone fractures; a six-year study of 503 patients.
        J Craniofac Surg. 2006; 17: 261-264