Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34(04): 373-380
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667025
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Nasal Width and Boxiness Index: Introduction and Pilot Study on Reliability and Validity of Sonographic Morphometry

Abel-Jan Tasman
1   Department of ENT, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
,
Ralph Litschel
2   Private Practice, St. Gallen, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 July 2018 (online)

Abstract

Both intended and unintended surgical modifications of nasal width and shape of the nasal tip continue to be of interest to the rhinoplasty surgeon. As validated instruments for quantifying width and boxiness are lacking, the objective of this study was to introduce a width index and a boxiness index for the nasal dorsum and the nasal tip. A width index and a boxiness index were defined within the methodological limits of noncontact sonography. The reliability of both indices was studied by comparing the measurements of two examiners on the noses of five volunteers. The validity of the indices was studied by correlating the sonographic width and boxiness with the 5-point Likert scale ratings of photographs of 5 noses by 21 lay persons. Nasal width was defined as the diameter at a distance of 5 mm from the skin surface on a sonographic cross-section perpendicular to the skin surface. Boxiness was defined as the quotient of width at a depth of 1 and 5 mm. Bland–Altmann analysis revealed negligible bias between both examiners and 95% of limits of agreement of 13, 7, and 13% for width at 1 mm, width at 5 mm, and boxiness, respectively. Corresponding Pearson's correlation coefficients were r = 0.93, r = 0.93, and r = 0.71. The correlation between the cumulative lay persons' scores and sonographic width and boxiness were r = 0.97, r = 0.66, and r = 0.81 for nasal tip width, dorsal width, and boxiness, respectively. Both the width at a depth of 5 mm as measured with sonography and the boxiness index that is defined as width at a depth of 1 mm divided by the width at a depth of 5 mm may prove to be acceptable surrogate parameters for width and boxiness of the nose in comparative morphometric studies.

 
  • References

  • 1 Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the Head and Face. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1998
  • 2 Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Khammar T, Khammar M. Anthropometric measurements of the external nose in 18-25-year-old Sistani and Baluch aborigine women in the southeast of Iran. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009; 68 (02) 88-92
  • 3 Ozdemir F, Uzun A. Anthropometric analysis of the nose in young Turkish men and women. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (07) 1244-1247
  • 4 Szychta P, Rykała J, Kruk-Jeromin J. Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 2011; 34 (04) 245-249
  • 5 Etöz A, Ercan I. Anthropometric analysis of the nose. In: Preedy VR. , ed. Handbook of Anthropometry. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012: 921
  • 6 Ingels KJ, Orhan KS, van Heerbeek N. The effect of spreader grafts on nasal dorsal width in patients with nasal valve insufficiency. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (05) 354-356
  • 7 Mojallal A, Ouyang D, Saint-Cyr M, Bui N, Brown SA, Rohrich RJ. Dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty: a quantitative outcome-based assessment of the component dorsal reduction technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (01) 280-288
  • 8 Sforza C, Rosati R, Menezes MD, Dolci C, Ferrario VF. Three-dimensional computerized anthropometry of the nose. In: Preedy VR. , ed. Handbook of Anthropometry. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012: 928
  • 9 Tasman AJ, Helbig M. Sonography of nasal tip anatomy and surgical tip refinement. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (07) 2573-2579 , discussion 2580–2582
  • 10 Helbig M, Flechtenmacher C, Hansmann J, Dietz A, Tasman AJ. Intraoperative B-mode endosonography of tongue carcinoma. Head Neck 2001; 23 (03) 233-237
  • 11 Tasman AJ, Diener PA, Litschel R. The diced cartilage glue graft for nasal augmentation. Morphometric evidence of longevity. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (02) 86-94
  • 12 Stenner M, Koopmann M, Rudack C. Measuring the nose in septorhinoplasty patients: ultrasonographic standard values and clinical correlations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (02) 855-860
  • 13 Stenner M, Rudack C. Ultrasound imaging of the nose in septorhinoplasty patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (10) 2831-2837
  • 14 Lübbers HT, Medinger L, Kruse A, Grätz KW, Matthews F. Precision and accuracy of the 3dMD photogrammetric system in craniomaxillofacial application. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21 (03) 763-767
  • 15 Aldridge K, Boyadjiev SA, Capone GT, DeLeon VB, Richtsmeier JT. Precision and error of three-dimensional phenotypic measures acquired from 3dMD photogrammetric images. Am J Med Genet A 2005; 138A (03) 247-253
  • 16 Coward TJ, Watson RM, Scott BJ. Laser scanning for the identification of repeatable landmarks of the ears and face. Br J Plast Surg 1997; 50 (05) 308-314
  • 17 Aung SC, Ngim RCK, Lee ST. Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements. Br J Plast Surg 1995; 48 (08) 551-558
  • 18 Tse R, Booth L, Keys K. , et al. Reliability of nasolabial anthropometric measures using three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry in infants with unrepaired unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (04) 530e-542e
  • 19 Heike CL, Cunningham ML, Hing AV, Stuhaug E, Starr JR. Picture perfect? Reliability of craniofacial anthropometry using three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (04) 1261-1272
  • 20 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307-310
  • 21 British Standards Institution. Precision of Test Methods 1: Guide for the Determination and Reproducibility for a Standard Test Method (BS 597, Part 1). London, United Kingdom: BSI; 1975
  • 22 Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22 (01) 85-93
  • 23 Rho NK, Park JY, Youn CS, Lee SK, Kim HS. Early changes in facial profile following structured filler rhinoplasty: an anthropometric analysis using a 3-dimensional imaging system. Dermatol Surg 2017; 43 (02) 255-263
  • 24 Pavri S, Zhu VZ, Steinbacher DM. Postoperative edema resolution following rhinoplasty: a three-dimensional morphometric assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (06) 973e-979e
  • 25 Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Pastore P, Percoco G. Application of off-the-shelf stereo-cameras for the 3D assessment of morphometric variations caused by rhinoplasty. J Med Eng Technol 2017; 41 (03) 186-199
  • 26 Dixon TK, Caughlin BP, Munaretto N, Toriumi DM. Three-dimensional evaluation of unilateral cleft rhinoplasty results. Facial Plast Surg 2013; 29 (02) 106-115
  • 27 Nord F, Ferjencik R, Seifert B. , et al. The 3dMD photogrammetric photo system in cranio-maxillofacial surgery: validation of interexaminer variations and perceptions. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43 (09) 1798-1803
  • 28 Kosins AM, Obagi ZE. Managing the difficult soft tissue envelope in facial and rhinoplasty surgery. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (02) 143-157
  • 29 Kosins AM. Comprehensive diagnosis and planning for the difficult rhinoplasty patient: applications in ultrasonography and treatment of the soft-tissue envelope. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (05) 509-518
  • 30 Yoo S, Most SP. Nasal airway preservation using the autospreader technique: analysis of outcomes using a disease-specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011; 13 (04) 231-233
  • 31 Ponsky D, Eshraghi Y, Guyuron B. The frequency of surgical maneuvers during open rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (01) 240-244
  • 32 Sen C, Iscen D. Use of the spring graft for prevention of midvault complications in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (01) 332-336
  • 33 Prendiville S, Zimbler MS, Kokoska MS, Thomas JR. Middle-vault narrowing in the wide nasal dorsum: the “Reverse Spreader” technique. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4 (01) 52-55
  • 34 Yoo DB, Jen A. Endonasal placement of spreader grafts: experience in 41 consecutive patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (05) 318-322
  • 35 Gassner HG, Friedman O, Sherris DA, Kern EB. An alternative method of middle vault reconstruction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (06) 432-435
  • 36 Giavarina D. Understanding Bland–Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015; 25 (02) 141-151