Resecting the cephalic component of the lateral crus in an attempt to reduce tip bulbosity has the potential to aggravate and/or cause alar retraction. It is a more serious problem for those patients who exhibit borderline alar retraction.
Fourteen primary rhinoplasty patients with borderline alar/columellar relationships for alar retraction formed the study. They did not warrant frank treatment of alar retraction but did exhibit tip bulbosity. An “island” of cephalic lateral crus was developed by an intercartilaginous incision and another 6 mm cephalic to the caudal border of the lateral crus. One or more mattress sutures were placed in the main body of the lateral crus to stiffen and straighten it. The “island” of cephalic crus was then slipped under the main body of the lateral crus.
At 11 months to 2½ years, 13 of the 14 patients demonstrated no significant change in their preoperative alar/columellar relationships. Bulbosity was corrected in all patients. One patient, however, required a revision using an alar contour rim graft. The mean preoperative alar-nostril axis measurement was 1.48 mm (range, 1.3 to 1.9 mm) in contrast to a mean postoperative measurement of 1.71 mm (range, 1.5 to 2.2 mm). A one-tailed paired t test indicated no statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative values.
The cephalic part of the lateral crus can act as a lateral crural strut to maintain the ala in a more caudal position. The technique is useful for borderline alar retraction and when lengthening the short nose for which there is a need to preserve side wall length.
Palo Alto and San Francisco, Calif.
From Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco.
Received for publication November 4, 2009; accepted January 27, 2010.
Disclosure: The authors have no financial interests in this research project or in any of the techniques or equipment used in this study.
Ronald P. Gruber, M.D., 3318 Elm Street, Oakland, Calif. 94609, email@example.com
Correction: Preventing Alar Retraction by Preservation of the Lateral Crus
Figures 5 and 6 (shown on pages 584 and 585) were published in error. They do not show the correct patient. The correct patient is shown in the new Figures 5 and 6, with revised figure legends, included with this note.
This correction is published in the November 2010 issue of the Journal.