Endoscopic-assisted versus conventional closed septorhinoplasty: a comparative study of functional, aesthetic, and postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Nasal septal deviation is a common cause of nasal obstruction, and septorhinoplasty addresses both functional and aesthetic concerns. The role of endoscopic assistance in closed septorhinoplasty remains incompletely characterized.

OBJECTIVES

To compare conventional closed and endoscopic-assisted septorhinoplasty regarding functional and aesthetic outcomes, postoperative morbidity, and operative time.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial included 50 patients randomized to conventional closed (group A) or endoscopic-assisted septorhinoplasty (group B). Outcomes included Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores, FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module, operative time, and postoperative morbidity (edema, ecchymosis, pain).

RESULTS

Operative time was longer in group B (116.68 ± 7.02 vs. 90.96 ± 7.07 min; p < 0.001). Group B showed significantly greater NOSE score improvement at 1 and 6 months (p < 0.001). Aesthetic satisfaction was higher in group B at 1 month (p < 0.001) but comparable at 6 months. Postoperative edema, ecchymosis, and day-7 pain scores were significantly lower in group B (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Endoscopic-assisted septorhinoplasty offers superior early functional outcomes and reduced postoperative morbidity despite longer operative time, with comparable long-term aesthetic results. These findings support endoscopic assistance as a valuable adjunct for enhancing surgical precision and early recovery in septorhinoplasty.