PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(01): 081-085
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722910
Original Article

Preservation Rhinoplasty: Evolution and Current State of Practice in the United States

Priyesh N. Patel
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
,
Oren Friedman
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Cherian K. Kandathil
3   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Sam P. Most
3   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Classic Joseph hump reduction techniques have been a hallmark of current rhinoplasty practice and teaching. Recently, there has been a renewed global interest in preservation rhinoplasty techniques, although these techniques are not new. The work and techniques of innovative surgeons including Goodale, Lothrop, and Cottle describing preservation concepts from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century were not as prevalently adopted as open structural approaches. As such, there has been a relative paucity in both research and teaching of preservation techniques—particularly in the United States. A survey of members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society (145 respondents) demonstrates that while 15 (10%) of surgeons are not at all familiar with dorsal preservation surgery, 130 (90%) were. In the group that was familiar with dorsal preservation, the majority were only somewhat familiar (84, 65%) with these techniques. Only 11 respondents received any formal training in dorsal preservation techniques during residency or fellowship. 61 (42%) had attended a course or conference in which dorsal preservation techniques were discussed. One-hundred twenty-two survey respondents (84.1%) do not currently implement preservation techniques into their rhinoplasty practice. Twelve (8%) respondents implement it in <25% of cases, 5 (3%) in 25 to 50% of cases, and 6 (4%) in >50% of cases. As research and formal training in preservation rhinoplasty grow, familiarity and implementation of these techniques will likely also grow in the United States.

Keywords

preservation rhinoplasty - dorsal preservation - rhinoplasty


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. Februar 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Daniel RK. The preservation rhinoplasty: a new rhinoplasty revolution. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 228-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Azizzadeh B, Reilly M. Dorsal hump reduction and osteotomies. Clin Plast Surg 2016; 43 (01) 47-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cottle MH. John Orlando Roe, pioneer in modern rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 1964; 80: 22-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bhattacharya S. Jacques Joseph: father of modern aesthetic surgery. Indian J Plast Surg 2008; 41: S3-S8
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Toriumi D. Structure Rhinoplasty: Lessons Learned in 30 Years. Chicago, IL: DMT Publishers; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Goodale JL. A new method for the operative correction of exaggerated roman nose. Boston Med Surg J 1899; 140: 112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Goodale JL. The correction of old lateral displacements of the nasal bones. Boston Med Surg J 1901; 145: 538-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lothrop O. An operation for correcting the aquiline nasal deformity; the use of new instrument; report of a case. Boston Med Surg J 1914; 170: 835-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 G M. Chirurgie maxilla-faciale. Paris: Le François; 1940: 1127-1133
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Sebileau P, Dufourmentel L. Correction chirurgicale des difformités congénitales et acquises de la pyramide nasale. Paris: Arnette; 1926: 104-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 S F. The Surgery of Injury and Plastic Repair. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company; 1939
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Cottle MH, Loring RM. Corrective surgery of the external nasal pyramid and the nasal septum for restoration of normal physiology. Ill Med J 1946; 90: 119-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Drumheller GW. The Push Down Operation and Septal Surgery. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; 1973
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Huizing EH. Push-down of the external nasal pyramid by resection of wedges. Rhinology 1975; 13 (04) 185-190
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wayoff M, Perrin C. [Global mobilization of the nasal pyramid according to Cottle's technic: its possibilities in functional nose surgery]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 1968; 22 (06) 675-680
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pirsig W, Königs D. Wedge resection in rhinosurgery: a review of the literature and long-term results in a hundred cases. Rhinology 1988; 26 (02) 77-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Willemot J, Vrebos J, Pollet J, Lalardrie JP. [Plastic surgery and otorhinolaryngology]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 1967; 21: 463-732
    PubMed
  • 18 Barelli PA. Long term evaluation of “push down” procedures. Rhinology 1975; 13 (01) 25-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hinderer KH. Fundamentals of Anatomy and Surgery of the Nose. Ann Arbor (Michigan): Aesculapius Publishing Co; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Kienstra M, Sherris D, Kern EB. The Cottle vs Joseph Rhinoplasty. In: Larrabee W, Thomas R. eds. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1999: 279-294
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Gola R, Nerini A, Laurent-Fyon C, Waller PY. [Conservative rhinoplasty of the nasal canopy]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1989; 34 (06) 465-475
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gola R. Functional and esthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27 (05) 390-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Saban Y, Braccini F, Polselli R. [Rhinoplasty: morphodynamic anatomy of rhinoplasty. Interest of conservative rhinoplasty]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2006; 127 (1-2): 15-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Saban Y, Daniel RK, Polselli R, Trapasso M, Palhazi P. Dorsal preservation: the push down technique reassessed. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 117-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Montes-Bracchini JJ. Nasal profile hump reduction using the let-down technique. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (05) 486-491
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Úlloa FL. Let down technique. Accessed Dec 12, 2019 at: https://www.rhinoplastyarchive.com/articles/let-down-technique
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tuncel U, Aydogdu O. The probable reasons for dorsal hump problems following let-down/push-down rhinoplasty and solution proposals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 378e-385e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Santos M, Rego AR, Coutinho M, Sousa CAE, Ferreira MG. Spare roof technique in reduction rhinoplasty: prospective study of the first one hundred patients. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (12) 2702-2706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ferreira MG, Monteiro D, Reis C, Almeida e Sousa C. Spare roof technique: a middle third new technique. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (01) 111-116
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ishida J, Ishida LC, Ishida LH, Vieira JC, Ferreira MC. Treatment of the nasal hump with preservation of the cartilaginous framework. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103 (06) 1729-1733 , discussion 1734–1735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Taş S. Dorsal roof technique for dorsum preservation in rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (03) 263-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Neves JC, Arancibia Tagle D, Dewes W, Larrabee W. The split preservation rhinoplasty: “the Vitruvian Man split maneuver”. European Journal of Plastic Surgery volume. 2020; 43: 323-333
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Öztürk G. Push-down technique without osteotomy: a new approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (03) 891-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kosins AM. Expanding indications for dorsal preservation rhinoplasty with cartilage conversion techniques. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (02) 174-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kosins AM, Daniel RK. Decision making in preservation rhinoplasty: a 100 case series with one-year follow-up. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (01) 34-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Patel PN, Abdelwahab M, Most SP. A review and modification of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty techniques. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (02) 71-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Abdelwahab MA, Neves CA, Patel PN, Most SP. Impact of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump resection on the internal nasal valve: a quantitative radiological study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (03) 879-887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kern EB. History of dorsal preservation surgery: seeking our historical godfather(s) for the “Push Down” and “Let Down” Operations. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics: Preservation Rhinoplasty 2020; In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Patel PN, Abdelwahab M, Most SP. Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty: method and outcomes of the modified subdorsal strip method. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2021; 29 (01) 29-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar