Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19(4): 299-308
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-815649
Copyright © 2003 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Revision Rhinoplasty

Thomas Romo III1,2,3,4 , Jonathan Sonne1 , Kyle S. Choe1 , Anthony P. Sclafani1,2,3
  • 1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
  • 2Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
  • 3Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
  • 4Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 January 2004 (online)

ABSTRACT

Revision rhinoplasty can be one of the most complicated procedures performed by the facial plastic surgeon. As septal cartilage is often not available in revision procedures, grafting material is often needed. This material can come in the form of autogenous bone and cartilage. Allografts also can be used, including mersilene, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, and porous high-density polyethylene (PHDPE). In this article, emphasis is placed on the senior author's method in evaluating candidates for revision rhinoplasty as well as techniques using PHDPE. In addition, the properties of the more commonly used allografts are described, including the advantages and disadvantages of using each material in revision rhinoplasty procedures. In comparing the various alloplastic materials available, it is shown that PHDPE has properties that make it an excellent implant for revision rhinoplasty.

REFERENCES

  • 1 Romo III  T, Millman A L. Aesthetic Facial Plastic Surgery.  New York: Thieme Medical Publishers 2000
  • 2 Gunter J P, Roohrich R J. Augmentation rhinoplasty: dorsal onlay grafting material using autogenous septal cartilage.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1990;  86 39-45
  • 3 Johnson C, Toriumi D M. Open Structure Rhinoplasty.  Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1989
  • 4 Daniel R K. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Rhinoplasty.  Boston: Little Brown 1993: 466
  • 5 Romo T, Jablonski R D. Nasal reconstruction using split calvarial grafts.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1992;  107 622-630
  • 6 Gross E J, Hamilton M H, Ackermann K. et al . Mersilene mesh chin augmentation.  Arch Facial Plast Surg . 1999;  1 183-189
  • 7 Colton J J, Beckhuis G J. Use of Mersilene mesh in nasal augmentation.  Facial Plast Surg . 1992;  8 149-156
  • 8 Farous N, Samaha M, Yoskovitch A. Dacron implants in rhinoplasty.  Arch Facial Plast Surg . 2002;  4 149-156
  • 9 Owsley T G, Taylor C O. The use of Gore-Tex for nasal augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 106 patients.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1994;  94 241-248
  • 10 Romo T, Sclafani A P, Sabini P. Use of porous high-density polyethylene in revision rhinoplasty and in the platyrrhine nose.  Aesthet Plast Surg . 1998;  22 211-221
  • 11 Sclafani A P, Romo T, Silver L. Clinical and histological behavior of exposed porous high-density polyethylene implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1997;  99 41-50
  • 12 Romo T, McLaughlin L A, Levine J M. et al . Nasal implants: autogenous, semisynthetic, and synthetic.  Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am . 2002;  10 155-166
  • 13 Roussett J D. The Rhinoplasty. Paris: G Steinhert 1904
  • 14 Choe K S, Stucki-McCormick S U. Chin augmentation.  Facial Plast Surg . 2000;  16 45-54
  • 15 Sevastianov V I. Role of protein adsorption in blood biocompatibility of polymers.  Crit Rev Biocompat . 1988;  4 109-154
  • 16 Tang L, Lucas A H, Eaton J W. Inflammatory responses to implanted biomaterials: role of surface-adsorbed immunoglobulin G.  J Lab Clin Med . 1993;  122 292-300
  • 17 Tang L, Eaton J W. Inflammatory response to biomaterials.  Am J Clin Pathol . 1995;  103 466-471
  • 18 Brown B L, Kern E B, Neel H B. Transplantation of fresh allografts (homografts) of crushed and uncrushed cartilage and bone: a 1-year analysis in rabbits.  Laryngoscope . 1980;  90 1521-1533
  • 19 Jobe R, Iverson R, Vistnes L. Bone deformation beneath alloplastic implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1973;  l51 169-175
  • 20 Friedland J A, Coccaro P J, Converse J M. Retrospective cephalometric analysis of mandibular bone absorption under silicone rubber chin implants.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1976;  57 144-151
  • 21 Milward T M. The fate of Silastic and vitathrene nasal implants.  Br J Plast Surg . 1972;  25 276-278
  • 22 Deva A K, Merten S, Chang L. Silicone in nasal augmentation rhinoplasty: a decade of clinical experience.  Plast Resonstr Surg . 1998;  102 1230-1237
  • 23 McCollough E G, Hom D B, Weigel M T, Anderson J R. Augmentation mentoplasty using Mersilene mesh.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1990;  116 1154-1158
  • 24 Maas C S, Gnepp D R, Bumpous H. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) in facial augmentation.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1993;  119 1008-1114
  • 25 Silver F H, Maas C S. Biology of synthetic facial implant materials.  Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am . 1994;  2 241-253
  • 26 Levine B, Berman W E. The current status of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) in facial plastic surgery.  Ear Nose Throat J . 1995;  74 681-684
  • 27 Stoll W. The use of polytetrafluoroethylene for particular augmentation of the nasal dorsum.  Aesth Plast Surg . 1991;  15 233-236
  • 28 Waldman S R. Gore-Tex for augmentation of the nasal dorsum: a preliminary report.  Ann Plast Surg . 1991;  26 520-525
  • 29 Maas C S, Gneep D R, Bumpous J. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) soft-tissue patch in facial augmentation.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1993;  119 1008-1014
  • 30 Mendelsohn M, Dunlop G. Gore-Tex augmentation grafting in rhinoplasty: is it safe?.  J Otolaryngol . 1998;  27 337-341
  • 31 Godin M S, Waldman S R, Johnson C M. Nasal augmentation using Gore-Tex: a 10-year experience.  Arch Facial Plast Surg . 1999;  1 118-121
  • 32 Spector M, Flemming W R, Sauer B W. Early tissue infiltrate in porous polyethylene implants into bone: a scanning electron microscope study.  J Biomed Mater Res . 1975;  9 537-545
  • 33 Wellisz T, Kanel G, Anooshian R V. Characteristics of tissue response to Medpor porous polyethylene implants in the human facial skeleton.  J Long-Term Effect Med Implants . 1993;  3 223-235
  • 34 Maas C S, Merwin G E, Wilson J. et al . Comparison of biomaterials for facial bone augmentation.  Arch Otorhinol Head Neck Surg . 1990;  116 551-556
  • 35 Lacey M, Antonyshyn O. Use of porous high-density polyethylene implants in temporal contour reconstruction.  J Craniofacial Surg . 1993;  4 74-78
  • 36 Romano J J, Iliff N T, Manson P N. Use of Medpor porous polyethylene implants in 140 patients with facial fractures.  J Craniofacial Surg . 1993;  4 142-147
  • 37 Sclafani A P, Thomas J R, Cox A J. et al . Clinical and histologic response of subcutaneous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and porous high density polyethylene (Medpor) implants to acute and early infection.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 1997;  123 328-336
  • 38 Beekhuis G J. Saddle nose deformity: etiology, prevention, and treatment; augmentation rhinoplasty with polyamide.  Laryngoscope . 1974;  84 2-42
  • 39 Stucker F J. Use of implantation in facial deformities.  Laryngoscope . 1977;  87 1523-1527
    >