Abstract
Introduction: Using a retrospective dataset, this study analysis patient satisfaction and functional outcomes following manipulation of nasal fractures under local anaesthesia (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA). The aim is to provide evidence for the development of a novel clinical pathway in the management of nasal fractures. Methods: : The data comprised of 174 referrals to an ENT clinic for nasal injury over a four‑month period. Of these, 51 patients underwent manipulation under LA and 20 underwent manipulation under GA. A post reduction telephone interview was conducted. Outcomes between LA and GA were compared, including wait times, desire for follow‑up and reported breathing concerns. Results: : The mean satisfaction score for patients receiving LA in clinic was 78% (SD 1.19), while patients who declined LA reported a mean score of 63%. An independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.43). In comparison, patients that received manipulation under GA reported a mean satisfaction of 80%. LA cases were treated sooner than GA cases; the mean interval between injury and manipulation was 10.6 days (SD 5.1) compared with 14.9 days (SD 6.5); this difference was significant (p = 0.014). The data also demonstrated a negative correlation between satisfaction and delay to manipulation (r = –0.358). Conclusions: : Closed nasal fracture manipulation under LA offers comparable cosmetic and functional outcomes to GA, with the added benefits allowing earlier intervention. Delayed treatment is associated with lower satisfaction and may secondary surgery. A protocol is developed to optimise management by tailoring the treatment based on clinical assessment.
Full text
7,018 characters
· extracted from
preprint-html
· click to expand
Establishing an Accelerated Clinical Protocol for Nasal Fracture Management: Insight from a Retrospective Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 20 August 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Establishing an Accelerated Clinical Protocol for Nasal Fracture Management: Insight from a Retrospective Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes Authors : Ali Al-Azzawi [email protected] , Ali Nahiyeh , and Sadie Khwaja Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175567517.77683095/v1 111 views 58 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Introduction: Using a retrospective dataset, this study analysis patient satisfaction and functional outcomes following manipulation of nasal fractures under local anaesthesia (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA). The aim is to provide evidence for the development of a novel clinical pathway in the management of nasal fractures. Methods: The data comprised of 174 referrals to an ENT clinic for nasal injury over a four‑month period. Of these, 51 patients underwent manipulation under LA and 20 underwent manipulation under GA. A post reduction telephone interview was conducted. Outcomes between LA and GA were compared, including wait times, desire for follow‑up and reported breathing concerns. Results: The mean satisfaction score for patients receiving LA in clinic was 78% (SD 1.19), while patients who declined LA reported a mean score of 63%. An independent t-test showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.43). In comparison, patients that received manipulation under GA reported a mean satisfaction of 80%. LA cases were treated sooner than GA cases; the mean interval between injury and manipulation was 10.6 days (SD 5.1) compared with 14.9 days (SD 6.5); this difference was significant (p = 0.014). The data also demonstrated a negative correlation between satisfaction and delay to manipulation (r = –0.358). Conclusions: Closed nasal fracture manipulation under LA offers comparable cosmetic and functional outcomes to GA, with the added benefits allowing earlier intervention. Delayed treatment is associated with lower satisfaction and may secondary surgery. A protocol is developed to optimise management by tailoring the treatment based on clinical assessment. Supplementary Material File (clinical management protocol manuscript.docx) Download 177.19 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 20 August 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Authors Affiliations Ali Al-Azzawi [email protected] Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust View all articles by this author Ali Nahiyeh Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust View all articles by this author Sadie Khwaja Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 111 views 58 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Ali Al-Azzawi, Ali Nahiyeh, Sadie Khwaja. Establishing an Accelerated Clinical Protocol for Nasal Fracture Management: Insight from a Retrospective Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes. Authorea . 20 August 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175567517.77683095/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175567517.77683095/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a005525e885506e7',t:'MTc3OTU1MjUzMg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.