Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32(06): 587-598
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597146
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Aesthetic Rhinoplasty as a Surface-Contour Operation: From Analysis to Surgery—Personal Concepts

Palma Pietro
1   The Milan Face Clinic, Milan, Italy
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Hospital of the University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
,
Khodaei Iman
3   Department of Ear, Nose & Throat, Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, United Kingdom
,
Vasilenko Irina
4   Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Federal Center of Otorhinolaryngology, Moscow, Russia
5   Department of Plastic Surgery, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 December 2016 (online)

Abstract

Numerous beautiful rhinoplasty results have been created by closed rhinoplasty techniques over the past 100 years. This operation was mainly a “reduction” surgery. Overaggressive reduction rhinoplasty is not a hallmark of the closed approach per se, but represents the result of inappropriate aesthetic appraisal, inadequate technical execution, or lack of sound anatomical understanding. Clearly, an operation based primarily on reduction intrinsically exposes the surgeon to the possibility of excessive diminution of support structures and consequently undesirable side effects. The advent of the external approach in the 1970s marked a paradigm shift. In the early 1990s, the external approach witnessed further development with the introduction of “structural rhinoplasty,” a deconstruction procedure followed by structural reconstruction. Opponents of the external approach felt that opening every nose can result in an overkill, specifically because the vast majority of patients presenting for cosmetic rhinoplasty neither desire nor require major reconstruction of the nose. In the last decade, the poorly named “closed” approach, once the pariah of rhinoplasty, has been rethought especially in the light of the undesirable long-term side effects, reappraised, and found a new lease of life as “endonasal rhinoplasty.” The personal surgical evolution of the senior author (P. P.) has created the concept of “hybrid endonasal rhinoplasty” (HER), where the term “hybrid” implies the incorporation of anatomical concepts and sophisticated suturing–grafting techniques developed by “openers” into the theoretical and technical corpus of HER. The senior author (P. P.) pondered over heterogenous concepts such as filling-reshaping, derived from the so-called medical rhinoplasty, and embodied these concepts into a purely surgical endonasal perspective. Consequently, aesthetic rhinoplasty can be considered a “surface-contour” operation. Nasal analysis, preoperative work-up, surgical logic, and operative techniques have been rethought. The patient is only interested in nasal appearance, not in its anatomy, so deconstructing the nose to change the subtle and demanding interplay of light and shadow is in many cases an overkill. Our emphasis should be on those structures that can be tackled and result in the ultimate aim of altering the aesthetic aspects of surface anatomy. Surface HER can deliver on all these counts.

 
  • References

  • 1 Sheen JH, Sheen AP , eds. Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. 2nd ed. Reprint of 1987 ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 1998
  • 2 Parkes MH, Kanodia R, Kern EB. The universal tip: a systematic approach to aesthetic problems of the lower lateral cartilages. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81 (6) 878-890
  • 3 Berman WE. Rhinoplastic Surgery. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby; 1989
  • 4 Tardy Jr ME. Rhinoplasty: The Art and the Science. Philadelphia, PA: W B Saunders; 1997
  • 5 Simons RL. A personal report: emphasizing the endonasal approach. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am 2004; 12 (1) 15-34
  • 6 Pastorek N, Ham J. The underprojecting nasal tip: an endonasal approach. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2004; 12 (1) 93-106
  • 7 Constantian Mark B. Rhinoplasty. Craft & Magic. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 2009
  • 8 Kamer FM, Pieper PG. Nasal tip surgery: a 30-year experience. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2004; 12 (1) 81-92
  • 9 Johnson Jr CM, Toriumi Dean M. Open structure rhinoplasty. Philadelphia, PA: W B Saunders; 1990
  • 10 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
  • 11 Adams JS. Grafts and implants in nasal and chin augmentation. A rational approach to material selection. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1987; 20 (4) 913-930
  • 12 Gunter JP. The merits of the open approach in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (3) 863-867
  • 13 Smith O, Goodman W. Open rhinoplasty: its past and future. J Otolaryngol 1993; 22 (1) 21-25
  • 14 Aiach G. Atlas of Rhinoplasty: Open and Endonasal Approaches. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing; 2003: 14
  • 15 Perkins SW. The evolution of the combined use of endonasal and external columellar approaches to rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2004; 12 (1) 35-50
  • 16 American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, ed. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the AAFPRS. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton; 1972
  • 17 Simons RL. Perspectives on the evolution of rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6) 409-411
  • 18 Rohrich RJ, Ahmad J. A practical approach to rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (4) 725e-746e
  • 19 Perkins S, Patel A. Endonasal suture techniques in tip rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2009; 17 (1) 41-54 , vi
  • 20 Kim JY, Choi MS. Endonasal extended columellar strut in Asian rhinoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015; 29 (6) e182-e186
  • 21 Çakır B, Öreroğlu AR, Daniel RK. Surface aesthetics and analysis. Clin Plast Surg 2016; 43 (1) 1-15
  • 22 Williams EF. Alar-columellar disharmony using the tongue-in-groove maneuver in primary endonasal rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (4) 283-288
  • 23 Harel M, Leibou L. Interdomal suture through a nondelivery endonasal approach: a new technique. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (8) e1005
  • 24 Bradford BD, Asher SA, Ardeshirpour F. Endonasal (closed) rhinoplasty technique: securing spreader grafts with barbed suture. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (5) 395-396
  • 25 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
  • 26 Palma P, Khodaei I. Why do I favour the endonasal approach?. B-ENT 2010; 6 (15) (Suppl. 15) 25-33
  • 27 Dayan SH, Arkins JP. The endonasal lateral crural underlay and sandwich grafts. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31 (1) 30-39
  • 28 Tasca I. Endoscopy-assisted rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4 (3) 190-193
  • 29 Palma P . Khodaei. Hybrid rhinoplasty: the 21st century approach to remodeling the nose. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12 (6) 412-414
  • 30 Braccini F. New trends in rhinoplasty. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2011; 132 04/05 215-221
  • 31 Thomas WW, Bucky L, Friedman O. Injectables in the nose: facts and controversies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2016; 24 (3) 379-389
  • 32 Jasin ME. Nonsurgical rhinoplasty using dermal fillers. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2013; 21 (2) 241-252
  • 33 Palma P, Khodaei P, Tasman AJ. A guide to the analysis and assessment of the rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (2) 146-159
  • 34 Palma P, Khodaei I. Surgical management of the distorted caudal septum. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 22 (1) 52-57
  • 35 Gunter JP. Facial analysis for the rhinoplasty patient. In: 12th Annual Dallas Rhinoplasty Symposium. Dallas, TX: Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; 1995: 17-27
  • 36 Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. New York, NY: Thieme–Stratton; 1984