Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32(05): 488-499
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1592101
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Surgical Nasal Implants: Indications and Risks

Dane J. Genther
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Ira D. Papel
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2   Facial Plastic Surgicenter, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 September 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Rhinoplasty often requires the use of grafting material, and the goal of the specific graft dictates the ideal characteristics of the material to be used. An ideal material would be biologically inert, resistant to infection, noncarcinogenic, nondegradable, widely available, cost-effective, readily modifiable, and easily removable, have compatible biomechanical characteristics, retain physical properties over time, and not migrate. Unfortunately, no material currently in existence meets all of these criteria. In modern rhinoplasty, autologous grafts are the gold standard against which all other nasal implants are measured and offer the safest long-term results for most patients. They are easily manipulated, have inherent stability and biomechanical characteristics similar to the native nasal framework, and confer minimal risk of complications. Modern homologous and alloplastic materials have gained considerable support in recent years because they are readily available in endless quantity, do not require a second surgical site for harvest, and are generally considered safe if most circumstances, but they confer additional risk and have biomechanical characteristics different from that of the native nasal framework. To address some of these issues, we provide a contemporary review of autologous, homologous, and alloplastic materials commonly used in rhinoplasty surgery.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - nasal implant - complications - grafting
 

  • References

  • 1 Vuyk HD, Adamson PA. Biomaterials in rhinoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998; 23 (3) 209-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Peled ZM, Warren AG, Johnston P, Yaremchuk MJ. The use of alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty surgery: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (3) 85e-92e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mohammadi S, Ghourchian S, Izadi F, Daneshi A, Ahmadi A. Porous high-density polyethylene in facial reconstruction and revision rhinoplasty: a prospective cohort study. Head Face Med 2012; 8: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McDowell F. History of rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1976; 1 (1) 321-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McDowell F. On restoring sunken noses without scarring the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 45 (4) 382-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Monks GH. Correction, by operation, of some nasal deformities and disfigurements. Boston Med Surg J 1898; 139: 262-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vilar-Sancho B. An old story: an ivory nasal implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1987; 11 (3) 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Romo III T, Pearson JM. Nasal implants. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (1) 123-132 , vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee MR, Unger JG, Rohrich RJ. Management of the nasal dorsum in rhinoplasty: a systematic review of the literature regarding technique, outcomes, and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (5) 538e-550e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ham J, Miller PJ. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene implants in rhinoplasty: literature review, operative techniques, and outcome. Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19 (4) 331-339
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Collawn SS, Fix RJ, Moore JR, Vasconez LO. Nasal cartilage grafts: more than a decade of experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (6) 1547-1552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Immerman S, White WM, Constantinides M. Cartilage grafting in nasal reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (1) 175-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Koehler J, McLain L. Grafting in cosmetic rhinoplasty. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012; 24 (1) 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tardy Jr ME, Denneny III J, Fritsch MH. The versatile cartilage autograft in reconstruction of the nose and face. Laryngoscope 1985; 95 (5) 523-533
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sajjadian A, Rubinstein R, Naghshineh N. Current status of grafts and implants in rhinoplasty: part I. Autologous grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (2) 40e-49e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Porter P, Kriet JD, Humphrey CD. Autologous rib grafts in the management of the crooked nose. Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31 (3) 228-237
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Davis WB, Gibson T. Absorption of autogenous cartilage grafts in man. Br J Plast Surg 1956; 9 (3) 177-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kim DW, Shah AR, Toriumi DM. Concentric and eccentric carved costal cartilage: a comparison of warping. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (1) 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gunter JP, Clark CP, Friedman RM. Internal stabilization of autogenous rib cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty: a barrier to cartilage warping. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (1) 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Erol OO. The Turkish delight: a pliable graft for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (6) 2229-2241 , discussion 2242–2243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Calvert J, Kwon E. Techniques for diced cartilage with deep temporalis fascia graft. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (1) 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sajjadian A, Naghshineh N, Rubinstein R. Current status of grafts and implants in rhinoplasty: part II. Homologous grafts and allogenic implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (3) 99e-109e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim HS, Park SS, Kim MH, Kim MS, Kim SK, Lee KC. Problems associated with alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. Yonsei Med J 2014; 55 (6) 1617-1623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alloderm Regenerative Tissue Matrix. LifeCell Corporation website. Available at http://www.lifecell.com/health-care-professionals/lifecell-products/allodermr-regenerative-tissue-matrix/ . Accessed June 29, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ferril GR, Wudel JM, Winkler AA. Management of complications from alloplastic implants in rhinoplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 21 (4) 372-378
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shirakabe Y, Shirakabe T, Kishimoto T. The classification of complications after augmentation rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1985; 9 (3) 185-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mutou Y. The complications of augmentation rhinoplasty in Orientals. Br J Plast Surg 1975; 28 (3) 160-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wang TD. Multicenter evaluation of subcutaneous augmentation material implants. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003; 5 (2) 153-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mendelsohn M, Dunlop G. Gore-tex augmentation grafting in rhinoplasty—is it safe?. J Otolaryngol 1998; 27 (6) 337-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Winkler AA, Soler ZM, Leong PL, Murphy A, Wang TD, Cook TA. Complications associated with alloplastic implants in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (6) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar