Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured

SUMMARY: Reduction rhinoplasty has been widely criticised and dismissed due to the current preference for structural rhinoplasty. The criticism is related to airway compromise and secondary structural deformities, both early and late, due to overzealous resection. This two-year study attempted to pr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Peter Sylaidis
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-12-01
Series:JPRAS Open
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587821000644
id doaj-68c4cb67f31f4948ac3401d849cddbc0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-68c4cb67f31f4948ac3401d849cddbc02021-08-20T04:35:27ZengElsevierJPRAS Open2352-58782021-12-01305360Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and MeasuredPeter Sylaidis0Corresponding Author: Dr. Peter Sylaidis, Specialist Plastic Surgeon, Adelaide Plastic Surgery, Level 4, 18 North Terrace, Adelaide, 5000. South Australia. Australia. +61 8 82131800; Adelaide Plastic Surgery, Level 4, 18 North Tce, Adelaide, 5000, South Australia, AustraliaSUMMARY: Reduction rhinoplasty has been widely criticised and dismissed due to the current preference for structural rhinoplasty. The criticism is related to airway compromise and secondary structural deformities, both early and late, due to overzealous resection. This two-year study attempted to prospectively assess the risk of airway and structural problems following reduction rhinoplasty in 30 consecutive patients. The findings showed no statistically significant difference either in the NOSE score (subjective sense of breathing) or in nasal valving (objective observations), at the 3-month follow-up. Subsequent 12-month telephone reviews revealed no change in the patients’ functional or aesthetic outcomes. There was a 3% structural complication rate (requiring secondary surgery) and a 20% rate for further refining reduction surgery.The findings confirmed the author's impression that conservative, measured reduction rhinoplasty, performed with due consideration to preserving the nasal supportive framework, is a technique well worth endorsing with confidence to reduce the disproportionately large nose. Contemporary surgeons need not feel obliged to only use the more complex later-developed structural rhinoplasty techniques.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587821000644Reduction rhinoplastycosmetic rhinoplastyrhinoplasty complications
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Peter Sylaidis
spellingShingle Peter Sylaidis
Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
JPRAS Open
Reduction rhinoplasty
cosmetic rhinoplasty
rhinoplasty complications
author_facet Peter Sylaidis
author_sort Peter Sylaidis
title Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
title_short Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
title_full Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
title_fullStr Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
title_full_unstemmed Reduction Rhinoplasty Re-Endorsed: When Conservative and Measured
title_sort reduction rhinoplasty re-endorsed: when conservative and measured
publisher Elsevier
series JPRAS Open
issn 2352-5878
publishDate 2021-12-01
description SUMMARY: Reduction rhinoplasty has been widely criticised and dismissed due to the current preference for structural rhinoplasty. The criticism is related to airway compromise and secondary structural deformities, both early and late, due to overzealous resection. This two-year study attempted to prospectively assess the risk of airway and structural problems following reduction rhinoplasty in 30 consecutive patients. The findings showed no statistically significant difference either in the NOSE score (subjective sense of breathing) or in nasal valving (objective observations), at the 3-month follow-up. Subsequent 12-month telephone reviews revealed no change in the patients’ functional or aesthetic outcomes. There was a 3% structural complication rate (requiring secondary surgery) and a 20% rate for further refining reduction surgery.The findings confirmed the author's impression that conservative, measured reduction rhinoplasty, performed with due consideration to preserving the nasal supportive framework, is a technique well worth endorsing with confidence to reduce the disproportionately large nose. Contemporary surgeons need not feel obliged to only use the more complex later-developed structural rhinoplasty techniques.
topic Reduction rhinoplasty
cosmetic rhinoplasty
rhinoplasty complications
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587821000644
work_keys_str_mv AT petersylaidis reductionrhinoplastyreendorsedwhenconservativeandmeasured
_version_ 1721201670437732352