Correlation of maximal nasal septal deviation with deviation at the maxillary insertion

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2876193/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Correlation of maximal nasal septal deviation with deviation at the maxillary insertion

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2876193/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 15 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

It is unclear if septal deviation at the insertion points to the nasal cavity is associated with the overall septal deviation. This study aimed to assess septal deviation at the cribriform plate (CP) and maxillary crest (MC) using CT scans and to see if there was any correlation with overall septal deviation.

Methods

All consecutive CT sinus scans between January 2020 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had a history of head, nasal or facial trauma, or any previous nasal surgical procedure. Angles between the septum and MC and the septum and CP as well as maximal angle of septal deviation (MSD) were measured.

Results

A total of 70 scans were included in the final analysis. The mean MSD was 8.14°. The mean septal deviation was 0.89° at the CP and 2.02° at the MC. The correlation coefficient between the deviation at the CP and MSD was 0.025 and between the deviation at the MC and MSD was 0.321.

Conclusion

Our data reveal a positive correlation between septal deviation at the floor of the nose and overall septal deviation; this was not observed at the septal deviation at the roof. This could be explained due to the inherent tilt in the cribriform plate or by earlier ossification and fixation of the septum during its development at its insertion to the roof, thereby allowing further growth and potential for deviation of the lower part of the septum and its insertion to the floor.

rhinology

radiology/imaging

anatomy

imaging

computerised tomography

Nasal septal deviation is usually attributed to trauma but can be present in patients without a documented history of injury. The nasal septum divides the internal nose in the sagittal plane and extends from the maxillary crest (MC) at the floor to the cribriform plate (CP) and skull base at the roof. It comprises of a cartilaginous section caudally (quadrangular cartilage) and a bony section made from the MC, perpendicular plate of the ethmoid (PPE) and vomer [1].

Nasal septal deviation could be secondary to trauma or septal growth and development. The septum begins its development from the neural crest and starts during the third month of gestation [2]. Endochondral ossification forms the first bony segment (perpendicular plate of the ethmoid) at 6 months gestation. Prior to this, the septum is completely cartilaginous. Studies have shown that the cartilaginous septum develops to roughly its maximum size in the first two years after birth with only limited cell proliferation up to the age of 35 in the anterior central septum [3–5]. This corresponds to rapid growth of the septum in the first two years of life and subsequent minimal increases in size by early adulthood⁶. The exact point and regulatory mechanisms that determine stabilisation in septal growth rate is not well understood⁶. The endochondral ossification continues into the 4th decade of life (average 36 years of age). Therefore, while septal growth shows no significant change in total area between patients in their twenties compared to those over 70, there is a decrease in overall septal cartilage area as this ossification process continues [5, 7, 8].

There have been multiple studies examining the influence of midface growth on the septum and vice-versa [9–13]. Other studies have assessed various internal nasal dimensions including nasal septal deviation with CT scans [14–18]. However, there are no known studies examining the deviation of the septum at its insertion to the roof and floor and its potential relationship with overall septal deviation. Given the fact that the septal development has such a close relationship with mid-face structures, it is likely to have a similar relationship with its insertion points into the facial skeleton.

This study therefore aimed to assess septal deviation at the CP and MC and to see if there was any correlation with overall septal deviation.

All adult (> 18 years) patients who had a sinus CT scan, for any indication, between 1st January 2020 and 31st December 2021 at an inner-city hospital affiliated with a tertiary university hospital were identified by the coding department. Of the identified patients, scans and case notes were analysed retrospectively. Data collected included age, gender, ethnicity, indication for CT scan (categorised to sinus or non-sinus disease), any documented relevant injury (head, nasal or facial trauma) and any previous ENT surgery. Patients were excluded if their scans had landmarks that were not clearly identifiable to undertake the required measurements, or had a radiological or documented history of head, nasal or facial trauma, or any previous nasal surgical procedure. If patients had duplicate imaging over the study period, then only the earliest scan was included for analysis.

All included patients had their CT scans retrieved by the radiology department and reviewed on the hospital imaging platform (Agfa Impax, Agfa-Healthcare, Belgium). In order to evaluate septal insertions to the floor and roof of the nose, as well as overall septal asymmetry, the following measurements were conducted:

Angle between septum and maxillary crest (SMC) (floor of nose) – left (LSMC) and right (RSMC)

Angle between septum and cribriform plate (SCP) (roof) – left (LSCP) and right (RSCP)

Maximal angle of septal deviation (MSD)

All measurements were undertaken independently by a head and neck radiology specialty trainee (D.D) and an ENT specialty trainee (K.K.G) using digital callipers and rulers available on the hospital radiology imaging viewer software. The measurements were taken in coronal CT planes. Figure 1 summarises how these measurements were taken. SMC and SCP angles were measured at the level of the first slice after the crista galli disappears and the cribriform plate forms, by drawing a vertical line down the septum and horizontal line across the maxillary crest and cribriform plate and then measuring the angles at which these lines intersect (Fig. 1a). MSD was measured by drawing a vertical line from the roof midline (at the first slice where the crista galli forms to allow for a more reliable and consistent midline measurement) to the floor midline at the maxillary crest, and another line from the roof midline point at the crista galli to the maximal point of septal deviation and measuring the angle created between these two lines (Fig. 1b). An angle of 90° was used to define no deviation at the cribriform plate (CP) or maxillary crest (MC).

[Figure 1]

Deviations at the CP and MC were assessed by calculating the difference between the measured angle on the scan and no deviation (i.e. 90°). This was then compared to the overall septal asymmetry (using the MSD) to assess for correlations between the MSD and deviations at CP and MC.

Descriptive statistical analysis was performed with mean and standard deviations calculated to summarise continuous variables after confirming normal distribution with Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were summarised using frequencies and percentages. Inter-rater reliability for measurements was tested using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Mean values of both raters were used in the final analysis if the ICC was greater than 0.75 (‘excellent’ inter-rater reliability as defined by Cichetti) [19]. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess for any statistical correlation between measurements. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 27.0, Armonk, NY:IBM Corp). No patient identifiable information was retained or stored and all scans were analysed anonymously. Adhering to the guiding principles of the Declaration of Helsinki this was an anonymous, retrospective analysis of case notes and investigations and as such no ethical approval was sought or required.

A total of 100 scans were conducted during the study period (this low number compared to other years is likely a reflection of reduced outpatient work during the coronavirus pandemic). Seventy scans were included in the final analysis after exclusion of 13 cases with previous nasal surgery (all endoscopic sinus surgery), 4 cases with previous documented trauma and the 13 cases under 18 years of age.

The study population (n = 70) had the age range of 18-93 years and the majority were female (58.6%). Forty patients were Caucasian (57.1%) and 30 were South Asian (42.9%). The majority of scans were undertaken for sinus or polyp disease (n = 65, 92.9%). These findings are summarised in Table 1.

[Table 1]

Inter-rater reliability was deemed as ‘excellent’ with an ICC of 0.85. Therefore, the mean values for both raters were used in the final analysis. The mean results for MC and CP deviation angles to the right or left as well as the MSD measurements are presented in Table 2. The overall direction of septal asymmetry was toward the right in 36 patients (51.4%) and to the left in 34 patients (48.6%). The results are summarised in Table 2.

[Table 2]

When calculating the septal deviation at the roof (CP) and floor (MC), the mean deviation was 0.89° at the CP and 2.02° at the MC. When comparing this to the MSD, the correlation coefficient between the deviation at the CP and MSD was 0.025 and the correlation coefficient between the deviation at the MC and MSD was 0.321. These results are summarised in figures 2 and 3.

[Figure 2]

[Figure 3]

Our results demonstrate that in a cohort of patients with no documented history of trauma or nasal surgery, there was some degree of septal deviation with an average of 8.14° when measured at its maximum. There was also an element of deviation at the septal insertion to the CP (0.89°), but the septal deviation was more prominent at its insertion to the MC (2.02°). The deviation at the CP had no correlation with the MSD. However, there was a correlation observed between MSD and the septal deviation at the MC. Our results suggest that greater deviations at the septal insertion to the floor of the nose are related to an increased overall septal deviation.

An explanation for the lack of correlation observed between the angle of deviation at the CP and MSD could be explained by tilted cribriform plates. This could also explain why there was an overall much smaller mean deviation at the CP (0.29°) compared to the MSD (8.14°). If the cribriform plate is tilted, even if there was a near perpendicular (90°) septal insertion into the roof, there would still be an overall septal asymmetry and apparent deviation due to the tilt at the point of septal insertion to the roof. This may have relevance in patients undergoing submucosal resection of the septum while preserving the dorsal bony and cartilaginous strut. While the septum may inherently be straight, it might still be leaning to one side (due to the angulated cribriform plate) resulting in residual septal deviation observed clinically. The patient may never truly have a straight septum in the midline due to variance in their cribriform plate and therefore still experience symptoms.

Another explanation might be related to the septal development. Lindahl described developmental deviations as being usually smooth (‘C’ or ‘S’ shaped) with traumatic deviations being more irregular [20]. As our cohort had no documented history of trauma or surgery, the septal deviations observed are likely to be related to developmental issues. The development of the septum in isolation is not well researched, with most studies in the literature evaluating its development in relation to midfacial growth⁶.

The nasal septum mostly grows in the first two years of life with endochondral ossification occurring until around 36 years of age⁶. It therefore follows that developmental nasal septal deviation would therefore have to occur in utero or during the early stages of life as the cartilaginous septum is developing. Excluding genetic causes and other craniofacial abnormalities, various explanations for this have been put forward in the literature [21]. These include intra-uterine microtrauma due to prolonged contact of the uterine wall and the fetal head during key stages of development, or various positions of the extremities of the fetus with the uterine wall from month four onward [22]. There have also been studies demonstrating correlation between nasal pyramid deformity, intrauterine stress and intramembranous ossification [23]. Furthermore, mammalian studies have that the nasofacial skeleton may act to constrain growth of the nasal septum and therefore induce deviation due to restriction; an effect that may be true in humans [9].

This does not however explain why the septal deviation observed in this study was more related to MC deviation and not CP deviation. A recent scoping review evaluated the literature pertaining to the nasal cartilage and its development but it did not comment on such a relationship or find any studies examining it [6]. A potential theory for this relationship between overall septal deviation at the MC but not the CP is earlier ossification of the septum close to the CP. This would allow further growth of the lower part of the septum at its insertion at the floor of the nose which leaves it at risk to deviation for a longer time than the upper part of the septum where its insertion at the roof is ossified and fixed earlier.

A recent study also assessed high anterior septal deviation using CT scans [19]. This study found a similar angle of septal deviation (8.9°) to our study (8.14°) however their measurements were conducted in a more anterior plane. While CT scans have been used as a measurement tool in other studies, these have focussed on other aspects such as the nasal aperture [24,25], septal surface area [14], and or relationship with the anterior nasal spine [17] and have not examined the septum in terms of its deviation and insertion points.

Our study is not without limitations. The use of a retrospective cohort brings with it recall bias especially with respect to trauma and surgical histories. It is known that childhood trauma can have a high influence on overall septal growth. While we tried to minimise this by excluding patients with a documented trauma history, some patients may have not disclosed this and therefore have been included. In addition, while our sample represented all patients undergoing a CT sinus at our centre over a two-year period, the overall number included for analysis was fairly small. Despite this, our n value was comparable to similar studies conducted in this field thus far. In addition, the authors note that that there were some CT scans where the anatomical landmarks were not wholly consistent.

Overall, we provide a reliable method using CT scans for measuring the overall septal deviation as well as its deviation at the point of septal insertion at the roof and at the floor of the nose. Using this method, we have demonstrated an overall septal deviation of 8.14° in patients with no documented history of trauma or nasal surgery. Our data reveal that there is a positive correlation between septal deviation at the floor of the nose and overall septal deviation; this correlation was not observed between the overall septal deviation and deviation of the septum at its insertion to the roof. This could be explained due to the inherent tilt in the cribriform plate or by the developmental aspect of the septum such as earlier ossification and fixation of the septum at its insertion to the roof, thereby allowing further growth and potential for deviation of the lower part of the septum and its insertion to the floor of the nasal cavity.

Ethical approval

Adhering to the guiding principles of the Declaration of Helsinki this was an anonymous, retrospective analysis of case notes and investigations and as such no ethical approval was sought or required.

Competing Interests

There are no competing interests to be disclosed by any author.

Author contributions

Keshav Kumar Gupta; project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing

Dean Davda; data collection, data analysis, manuscript editing

Zahir Mughal; data analysis, manuscript editing

Andrew Lotfallah; data analysis, manuscript editing

Shahra, Anari; project development, manuscript editing, project supervision

Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding

There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare from any author.

Availability of data and materials

Data is available on request.

Acknowledgements

Nil.

Most SP, Rudy SF (2017). Septoplasty: Basic and Advanced Techniques. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 25:161-169.
Seltzer AP (1963). The problem of the nasal septum. J Albert Einstein Med Cent 11:283-99.
Vetter U, Heit W, Helbing G, Heinze E, Pirsig W (1984). Growth of the human septal cartilage: cell density and colony formation of septal chondrocytes. Laryngoscope 94:1226–1229.
Vetter U, Pirsig W, Heinze E. Postnatal-growth of the human septal cartilage—preliminary report (1984). Acta Otolaryngol 97:131-6.
Van Loosen J, Van Zanten GA, Howard CV, Verwoerd-Verhoef HL, Van Velzen D, Verwoerd CD (1996). Growth characteristics of the human nasal septum. Rhinology, 34(2), 78–82.
Baddam P, Bayona-Rodriguez F, Campbell SM, El-Hakim H, Graf D. Properties of the Nasal Cartilage, from Development to Adulthood: A Scoping Review (2022). Cartilage 13:19476035221087696.
Huizing BH, de Groot J (2012). Functional reconstructive nasal surgery. In: Kheirandish-Gozal L, Gozal D, editors. Sleep disordered breathing in children: a comprehensive clinical guide to evaluation and treatment. New York: Humana Press; pp. 37–38.
Kim JH, Jung DJ, Kim HS, Kim CH, Kim TY (2014). Analysis of the development of the nasal septum and measurement of the harvestable septal cartilage in Koreans using three-dimensional facial bone computed tomography scanning. Arch Plast Surg 41:163-170.
Goergen MJ, Holton NE, Grünheid T (2017). Morphological interaction between the nasal septum and nasofacial skeleton during human ontogeny. J Anat 230:689-700.
Siegel MI, Mooney MP, Eichberg JW, Gest T, Lee DR. Septopremaxillary ligament resection and midfacial growth in a chimpanzee animal model (1990). J Craniofac Surg 1:182-186.
Al Dayeh AA, Rafferty KL, Egbert M, Herring SW. Real-time monitoring of the growth of the nasal septal cartilage and the nasofrontal suture (2013). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 143:773-783.
Holton NE, Yokley TR, Figueroa A. Nasal septal and craniofacial form in European- and African-derived populations (2012). J Anat 221(3):263-274.
Mays S. Nasal septal deviation in a mediaeval population (2012). Am J Phys Anthropol 148:319-326.
Daultrey C, Hardman J, Anari S. The Caucasian Nasal Septum: An In Vivo Computed Tomography Study (2018). Aesthet Surg J 38:717-722.
Denour E, Roussel LO, Woo AS, Boyajian M, Crozier J. Quantification of Nasal Septal Deviation With Computed Tomography Data (2020). J Craniofac Surg 31:1659-1663.
Janovic N, Janovic A, Milicic B, Djuric M. Is Computed Tomography Imaging of Deviated Nasal Septum Justified for Obstruction Confirmation? (2021). Ear Nose Throat J 100:NP131-NP136.
Goh S, Karamchandani D, Anari S. Relationship of the posterior septal angle to the anterior nasal spine in the Caucasian nasal septum (2019). J Laryngol Otol 133:224-226.
Periyasamy V, Bhat S, Sree Ram MN. Classification of Naso Septal Deviation Angle and its Clinical Implications: A CT Scan Imaging Study of Palakkad Population, India (2019). Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 71:2004-2010.
Lee JA, Wu V, Ozgen B, Joe SA, Lee VS. Radiological Assessment of High Anterior Septal Deviation and Its Impact on Sinus Access. Laryngoscope. 2022;132:1166-1171.
Lindahl J. W. The deviated nasal septum (1954). The Practitioner 173:315–317.
Teul I, Slawinski G, Lewandowski J, Dzieciolowska-Baran E, Gawlikowska-Sroka A, Czerwinski F. Nasal septum morphology in human fetuses in computed tomography images (2010). Eur J Med Res 15:202-205.
Steiner A. A certain aspect of nasal trauma in the prenatal period (1959). Md State Med J 8:557.
Jones GN, Pringle DR, Yin Z, Carlton MM, Powell KA, Weinstein MB, Toribio RE, La Perle KMD, Kirschner LS (2010). Neural crest-specific loss of Prkar1a causes perinatal lethality resulting from defects in intramembranous ossification. Mol Endocrinol 24:6–11.
Moreddu E, Puymerail L, Michel J, Achache M, Dessi P, Adalian P. Morphometric measurements and sexual dimorphism of the piriform aperture in adults (2013). Surg Radiol Anat 35:917–24
Ryu JY, Park KS, Kim MJ, Yun JS, Lee U, Lee SS, Roh BY, Seo JU, Choi CU, Lee WJ. Craniofacial anthropometric investigation of relationships between the nose and nasal aperture using 3D computed tomography of Korean subjects (2020). Scientific Reports 30;10:1-9.

Table 1. Baseline demographics for included patients and scan indications (n = 70).

	n	%
Gender
Female	41	58.6
Male	29	41.4
Ethnicity
Caucasian	40	57.1
South Asian	30	42.9
Scan Indication
Sinus/polyp disease	65	92.9
Non-sinus disease	5	7.1

Table 2. Overall results from nasal measurements (n = 70). LSMC = left septum maxillary crest, RSMC = right septum maxillary crest, LSCP = left septum cribriform plate, RSCP = right septum cribriform plate, MSD = maximal septal deviation, SD = standard deviation.

	Mean (°)	SD (°)	Range (°)
LSMC angle	88.7	5.72	71.0 – 104.9
RSMC angle	89.7	7.35	59.9 – 118.0
LSCP angle	91.4	4.19	75.8 – 100.2
RSCP angle	90.9	5.29	78.6 – 102.3
MSD	8.14	4.09	2.13 – 19.7

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 15 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
19 Feb, 2024
Reviews received at journal
18 Feb, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 Feb, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Feb, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
03 May, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
03 May, 2023
First submitted to journal
29 Apr, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Correlation of maximal nasal septal deviation with deviation at the maxillary insertion

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results and Analysis

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1