Clinical Analysis of Nasal Bone Fracture in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Dorsal Augmentation Using Silicone Implants: A Pilot Study.

[BACKGROUND] There are no studies about the treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with dorsal augmentations using silicone implants. We aimed to describe the characteristics of nasal bone fracture in patients who underwent rhinoplasty and compare the difference between closed reduction and conservative treatment of nasal bone fractures in patients with a history of rhinoplasty.

[METHODS] Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 463 patients were admitted to our center for nasal bone fracture; 17 patients with nasal bone fractures who underwent rhinoplasty were included, of which, five underwent closed reduction in the nasal bone and 12 underwent conservative treatment. Three of 12 patients who were initially treated conservatively underwent a secondary rhinoplasty for esthetic improvements. All patients were classified according to fracture site and the presence of a nasal septal fracture-in accordance with the modified Murray classification-and were analyzed for the correlation between fracture type and disease course.

[RESULTS] The nasal bone fracture types per computed tomography findings were unilateral (n = 13), bilateral (n = 4), septal (n = 1), and M-type (n = 1). No significant differences in fracture site (P > 0.05) and the presence of a nasal septal fracture (P > 0.05) were found between the groups. Fracture type did not significantly differ among patients who underwent closed reduction, conservative treatment without secondary rhinoplasty, and secondary rhinoplasty (P > 0.05).

[CONCLUSIONS] Despite risking traumatic capsular rupture, implant removal is seldom required and closed reduction is recommended if visible deviations are present; otherwise, only conservative treatment is recommended.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.