Comparison of Nasal Airways After Classical Structural Rhinoplasty and Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty

<b>Purpose:</b> To investigate whether there was a difference in the nasal airway dimensions after dorsal preservation and classical structural rhinoplasty. <b>Introduction:</b> The surgical approach to rhinoplasty has improved over many decades. The first was the classic structural rhinoplasty (CSR) developed by Joseph, where the excess tissues are removed from the dorsal hump. In the following decades, dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) was established to prevent complications associated with CSR. <b>Methods:</b> One hundred twenty-four patients without self-reported nose obstruction syndromes underwent DPR or CSR according to the authors' shared surgical regime. Nasal airway dimensions of rhinoplasty patients were measured preoperatively and postoperatively with acoustic rhinometry (AR), and minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA) and internal nasal volumes (VOL) were acquired. <b>Results:</b> Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty was performed on 64 patients (51.6%), while classical structural rhinoplasty was performed on the remaining 60 (48.4%). There were no significant differences between the 2 techniques regarding VOL and MCA. (MCA1left side DPR vs CSR <i>P</i> = .539, VOL1 right side DPR vs CSR <i>P</i> = .843). <b>Conclusion:</b> We postulate that nasal airway dimensions do not predict or indicate whether the DPR or CSR technique will be/have been used in rhinoplasty surgery, and the employed technique does not significantly alter the dimensions of the nasal airways. Any significant change in nasal airway dimensions is more likely due to the septal intervention.