Facial Plast Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2775-5859
Original Research

A Comparative Analysis of Nasal Valve Surgery Methods

Authors

  • Gonçalo Caetano

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Ricardo Matos

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Mariana Santos

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Duarte Morgado

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Catarina Pinto

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Inês Veloso

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Raquel Robles

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal
  • Rui Fonseca

    1   Department of Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal

Abstract

Introduction

Internal nasal valve insufficiency is a major cause of nasal obstruction. Alar batten grafts (ABGs) are commonly used, but data on lateral crural tensioning (LCT) remain limited.

Objectives and Hypotheses

To compare the efficacy of ABG and LCT techniques in improving nasal airflow. Primary outcomes were nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) score and revision surgery rate; secondary outcome was complication rate.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study (PICOS).

Methods

The study included 22 patients undergoing rhinoplasty for nasal valve insufficiency (2017–2023): ABG (n = 8) and LCT (n = 14). NOSE scores were obtained via telephone survey. Data were collected from clinical records.

Results

Mean NOSE scores improved from 55 to 30.6 overall. ABG improved from 51.7 to 31.7, LCT from 56.7 to 30. One ABG patient required revision (12.5%), none in LCT group. Differences were not statistically significant between groups.

Conclusion

LCT showed greater symptom improvement and no revisions. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm efficacy.



Publication History

Received: 14 May 2025

Accepted after revision: 18 December 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 December 2025

Article published online:
07 January 2026

© 2026. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA