Kapı, EminKopal, CanSeyhan, TamerÇelik, Yusuf2022-04-082022-04-0820220364-216X1432-5241https:/dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02822-whttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12451/9271Background The midvalve area is one of the most important anatomical points in rhinoplasty procedures. An additional intervention may be required to ensure there is no narrowing in this region. For this reason, several different techniques are used. Spreader graft technique is the most common of all these methods. T-splay graft technique is an alternative method that can effectively widen the angle of the midvalve. The present study compares the anatomical and functional outcomes of these two methods. Methods The study included 60 cases who presented to our clinic for rhinoplasty. The cases were evaluated demographically, anatomically, and functionally, and the acquired data were recorded. All cases were preoperatively administered the Visual Analogue Scale, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale, and the modified Glatzel mirror test. By randomly selecting the cases, midvalve restoration was performed with a spreader graft in 30 cases and a T-splay graft in 30 cases. Results A comparison of the Visual Analogue Scale, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale, and the modified Glatzel mirror test scores revealed that the scores of both groups at postoperative months 3 and 6 were significantly different from the preoperative measurement values. Conclusions Although spreader graft technique is a very effective method in midvalve management, we believe that T-splay graft technique may also produce effective outcomes. In addition, the midvalve functions could be better simulated anatomically and functionally with T-splay graft technique. Therefore, we believe that T-splay graft technique is an alternative method that can be safely used in selected cases.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessRhinoplastyInternal Nasal ValveMidvalveSpreader GraftT-splay GraftArticle----10.1007/s00266-022-02822-w35201376Q1WOS:000760704000003Q2