A Modified Closed-Open Approach as Part of a Graduated and Integrative Approach to Rhinoplasty

Abstract

Introduction Open versus closed approach in rhinoplasty is a frequently debated topic in aesthetic plastic surgery. Although good results can often be achieved with either technique, both have unique advantages and disadvantages. In this investigation, we present our experiences of a modified closed-open approach that has been applied on 482 complex primary and secondary rhinoplasties. Three representative cases are described in more detail.

Materials and Methods The procedure begins as a closed approach through an intracartilaginous incision allowing cephalic trimming of the lateral crura, dorsal rasping, and/or excision. Patients requiring extensive nasal tip maneuvers are subjected to exposure of the alar cartilage framework through a transcolumellar/limited marginal incision. This provides not only adequate exposure of the alar cartilages but also easy access to the septum.

Conclusion In our hands, this approach is easy and expeditious. It requires less tip dissection, and therefore may avoid the prolonged postoperative edema that is often a consequence of open or extended closed tip delivery approaches.

Keywords

modified closed-open approach - open and closed approaches - rhinoplasty

• References

• 1 Daniel RK. Rhinoplasty: The First 100. In: Daniel RK. ed. Rhinoplasty. 1st edition.. Boston: Little Brown; 1993: 321-380
• 2 Tebbetts JB. Open and closed rhinoplasty (minus the “versus”): analyzing processes. Aesthet Surg J 2006; 26 (04) 456-459
• 3 Perkins SW. The evolution of the combined use of endonasal and external columellar approaches to rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2004; 12 (01) 35-50
• 4 Alexander RW. Fundamental terms, considerations, and approaches in rhinoplasty. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 1995; 3 (02) 15-25
• 5 Toriumi DM, Mueller RA, Grosch T, Bhattacharyya TK, Larrabee Jr. WF. Vascular anatomy of the nose and the external rhinoplasty approach. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (01) 24-34
• 6 Dayan SH. Evolving techniques in rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2007; 23 (01) 62-69
• 7 Adamson PA, Galli SK. Rhinoplasty approaches: current state of the art. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (01) 32-37
• 8 Simons RL, Grunebaum LD. The endonasal approach to rhinoplasty. In: Stucker FJ, de Souza C, Kenyon GS, Lian TS, Draf W, Schick B. eds. Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery. 1st edition.. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2009: 713-721
• 9 Cafferty A, Becker DG. Open and closed rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2016; 43 (01) 17-27
• 10 Constantian MB. Constantian’s approach. In: Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ, Adams Jr. WP. eds. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. 2nd edition.. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 2007: 1465-1502
• 11 Sheen JH. Closed versus open rhinoplasty–and the debate goes on. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (03) 859-862
• 12 Rohrich RJ, Ahmad J. Open technique rhinoplasty. In: Warren RJ, Nelligan PC. eds. Plastic Surgery: Aesthetic Surgery. 3rd edition. (; Vol. 2). London: Saunders Elsevier; 2013: 386-412
• 13 Gunter JP. Gunter’s approach. In: Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ, Adams Jr. WP. eds. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. 2nd edition.. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 2007: 1329-1354
• 14 Rohrich RJ, Janis JE, Kenkel JM. Male rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (04) 1071-1085
• 15 Guerrerosantos J. Open rhinoplasty without skin-columella incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85 (06) 955-960
• 16 Adamson PA, Constantinides M, Kim AJ, Pearlman S. Rhinoplasty: panel discussion. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2014; 22 (01) 25-55
• 17 Cakir B, Oreroğlu AR, Doğan T, Akan M. A complete subperichondrial dissection technique for rhinoplasty with management of the nasal ligaments. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (05) 564-574
• 18 Constantian MB. Differing characteristics in 100 consecutive secondary rhinoplasty patients following closed versus open surgical approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (06) 2097-2111
• 19 Daniel RK. Secondary rhinoplasty following open rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96 (07) 1539-1546
• 20 Cakir B. The superficial SMAS. In: Cakir B. ed. Aesthetic Septorhinoplasty. 1st edition.. Cham: Springer International; 2016: 290-1
• 21 Rohrich RJ, Lee MR. External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (02) 404-416
• 22 Sevin A, Sevin K, Erdogan B, Deren O, Adanali G. Open rhinoplasty without transcolumellar incision. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (03) 252-254
• 23 Ors S, Ozkose M, Ors S. Comparison of various rhinoplasty techniques and long-term results. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (04) 465-473
• 24 Holmström H, Luzi F. Open rhinoplasty without transcolumellar incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 97 (02) 321-326
• 25 Bravo FG, Schwarze HP. Closed-open rhinoplasty with extended lip dissection: a new concept and classification of rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (03) 944-950