Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32(04): 402-408
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1585422
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Modern Rhinoplasty: Is There a Place for the Closed Approach?

Alexander Berghaus
1   Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ludwig Maximilian University, Grosshadern Campus, Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 August 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Rhinoplasty is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries and, in many cases, an elective procedure. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the functional and aesthetic issues of the patient accurately and devise the proper surgical strategy most beneficial to the patient. Modern rhinoplasties can be approached by two distinct techniques: the open technique or the closed, endonasal technique. While most rhinosurgeons today prefer the open procedure due its superior access to the nasal scaffold and overview over the surgical field in particular, we highlight in this article techniques and benefits of endonasal rhinoplasty and critically discuss situations where such an approach yields superior results. Each rhinoplasty procedure, with its inherent strengths and weaknesses, has to be matched with a given nasal condition and the desired results to offer the maximum benefit to the patient. Therefore, each rhinosurgeon should be knowledgeable and trained in the endonasal technique. Open rhinosurgery is not always necessary and may even be disadvantageous in some cases.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - closed approach - open technique - endonasal technique
 

  • References

  • 1 Roe JO. The deformity termed “pug nose” and its correction, by a simple operation (reprint from The Medical Record, June 4, 1887). Plast Reconstr Surg 1970; 45: 78-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Joseph J. Nasenplastik und sonstige Gesichtsplastik. Leipzig, Germany: Curt Kabitzsch; 1931
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Simons RL. Perspectives on the evolution of rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6) 409-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rethi A. Operation to shorten an excessively long nose. Rev Chir Plast 1934; 2: 85-87
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cottle MH, Loring RM. Surgery of the nasal septum; new operative procedures and indications. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1948; 57 (3) 705-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sercer A. Nasal decortication and its value in cosmetic surgery [in French]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 1957; 78 (3–4) 161-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Padovan IF. Combination of extranasal and intranasal approach in surgery of the nasal pyramid and nasal septum (decortication). Can J Otolaryngol 1975; 4 (3) 522-528
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goodman WS. External approach to rhinoplasty. Can J Otolaryngol 1973; 2 (3) 207-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goodman WS, Charles DA. Technique of external rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 1978; 7 (1) 13-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sheen JH. Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Anderson JR, Johnson Jr CM, Adamson P. Open rhinoplasty: an assessment. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1982; 90 (2) 272-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ. External approach for secondary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 80 (2) 161-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Adamson PA, Smith O, Tropper GJ. Incision and scar analysis in open (external) rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116 (6) 671-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Johnson CM, Toriumi DM. Open Structure Rhinoplasty. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Gruber R. Rhinoplasty and open rhinoplasty. Chapter 2. In: Peck GC, ed. Complications and Problems in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Daniel Red. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: Rhinoplasty. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Daniel RK. Mastering Rhinoplasty. Berlin: Springer; 2010
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Guerrerosantos J. Open rhinoplasty without skin-columella incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (6) 955-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Adamson PA, Galli SK. Rhinoplasty approaches: current state of the art. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (1) 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dayan S, Kanodia R. Has the pendulum swung too far? trends in the teaching of endonasal rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6) 414-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Meyer R. Secondary and Functional Rhinoplasty. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Tardy ME. Rhinoplasty: The Art and the Science. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ, Adams WP eds. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Foda HM. External rhinoplasty: a critical analysis of 500 cases. J Laryngol Otol 2003; 117 (6) 473-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rohrich RJ, Lee MR. External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (2) 404-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gruber RP, Friedman GD. Suture algorithm for the broad or bulbous nasal tip. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (7) 1752-1764 , discussion 1765–1768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Simons RL. A personal report: emphasizing the endonasal approach. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2004; 12 (1) 15-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Berghaus A. New instruments for rhinoplasty: operating mirror and alar guiding set. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (7) 2224-2225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Berghaus A. New rhinoplasty instruments: columella scissors and self-retaining Aufricht retractor. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; ; July 1. Available at: http://journals.lww.com/prsgo/Citation/latest/New_Rhinoplasty_Instruments___Columella_Scissors.99194.aspx . Accessed July 6, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Adams Jr WP, Rohrich RJ, Hollier LH, Minoli J, Thornton LK, Gyimesi I. Anatomic basis and clinical implications for nasal tip support in open versus closed rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (1) 255-261 , discussion 262–264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Meyer R, Berghaus A. Closure of perforations of the septum including a single-session method for large defects. Head Neck Surg 1983; 5 (5) 390-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aiach G. Mini-forum: rhinoplasty by external approach. External or endonasal approach for rhinoplasty? [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1992; 37 (5) 498-509
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cárdenas-Camarena L, Guerrero MT. Improving nasal tip projection and definition using interdomal sutures and open approach without transcolumellar incision. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002; 26 (3) 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sheen JH. Closed versus open rhinoplasty—and the debate goes on. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (3) 859-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Constantian MB. The two essential elements for planning tip surgery in primary and secondary rhinoplasty: observations based on review of 100 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (6) 1571-1581 , discussion 1582–1585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fritz K. “Open approach”—der “Fortschritt” zurück an den Beginn der Septorhinoplastik. HNO 2000; 48 (8) 562-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar