Nasal Dorsum Augmentation with Diced Cartilage Grafts Wrapped in Scarpa’s Fascia

Abstract

Background: Diced cartilage grafts wrapped in fascia are used for nasal dorsal augmentation to restore dorsal volume and improve nasal contour. Scarpa’s fascia may provide alternative wrapping material for diced cartilage grafts. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of nasal dorsal augmentation using diced cartilage grafts wrapped in Scarpa’s fascia. Patients and Methods: This prospective case series included 15 patients with saddle nose deformity who underwent nasal dorsal augmentation using diced cartilage grafts wrapped in Scarpa’s fascia at Fayoum University Hospitals between November 2022 and May 2024. Patients were followed for 6–12 months. Preoperative and postoperative radix measurements were compared, and postoperative complications, physician-rated satisfaction, and patient-reported satisfaction were assessed. Results: The mean patient age was 35.1 ± 7.9 years (range, 22–50 years), and 10 patients (66.7%) were male. The mean radix measurement increased from 8.4 ± 0.83 mm preoperatively to 13.4 ± 0.83 mm postoperatively (P < 0.001). A palpable dorsal graft occurred in 1 patient (6.7%), while visible contour deformities were observed in 2 patients (13.3%). Donor-site morbidity occurred in 2 patients (13.3%), comprising 1 case of minimal hematoma and 1 case of minimal seroma. No infection, graft resorption, wrapping-related complications, or step-off deformity was observed. Physician-rated satisfaction was excellent in 10 patients (66.7%) and good in 5 (33.3%). Patient-reported satisfaction was excellent in 9 patients (60.0%) and good in 6 (40.0%). Conclusion: Nasal dorsal augmentation using diced cartilage grafts wrapped in Scarpa’s fascia was associated with a significant postoperative increase in radix measurements and favorable descriptive satisfaction ratings in this small case series. Although the observed complications were limited, the findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size and follow-up duration. Larger comparative studies with longer follow-up are required to further evaluate the safety, durability, and clinical effectiveness of this technique