rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Dorsum and hump · 2015

FPS Facial Plastic Surgery · 2015

Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty: A Survey and Review

Malone M, Pearlman S.

What this paper says

A review of the materials used to build up the nasal bridge, concluding that the patient's own cartilage remains the standard while irradiated donor rib, ePTFE and silicone each have defined roles and risks.

Overview

Building up the bridge of the nose can be done with the patient's own tissue, donated human tissue or a synthetic implant, and surgeons disagree about which to prefer. The authors surveyed colleagues' practices and searched PubMed for reviews and large series reporting the safety and effectiveness of each material. No numbers from that search are given in the abstract.

Sections of note

  • Two parts: a survey of practice among colleagues and a literature review.
  • Autologous cartilage grafts remain in widespread use for bridge augmentation and other rhinoplasty steps.
  • Irradiated donor rib cartilage is described as a preferred alternative, with low reported complication rates and an abundant supply, particularly useful in revision surgery.
  • Silicone implants are prevalent in Asian countries where they are a popular first choice.
  • ePTFE has a favourable complication profile in first-time rhinoplasty, but the authors advise caution when using it in revision cases.
  • Porous polyethylene carries a higher risk of complications than the other synthetic implants listed.

What it means for a patient

  • There is no single correct material. The choice depends on how much height is needed, whether the nose has been operated on before, and how much of the patient's own cartilage is available.
  • Using the patient's own cartilage avoids implant rejection but requires a second surgical site.
  • Donated irradiated rib avoids that second site and is available in quantity, which matters most in revision surgery.
  • This is a narrative review with no pooled complication rates, no survey response numbers and no comparison of outcomes, so it summarises opinion and published series rather than measuring them.

Why this paper matters

Material choice drives both the appearance and the long-term complication risk in augmentation rhinoplasty, and geographic practice differs sharply. The paper maps those differences. What it does not do is quantify the trade-offs in a way that lets one material be ranked against another.

Terms

  • Dorsal augmentation: building up the bridge of the nose.
  • Autologous graft: tissue taken from the patient's own body.
  • Homologous or irradiated rib: donated human cartilage treated with radiation to sterilise it.
  • Alloplastic implant: a manufactured implant made from synthetic material.
  • ePTFE: expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, a soft porous synthetic implant material.
  • Porous polyethylene: a rigid synthetic implant that tissue grows into.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-08; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

From the abstract

“Understanding the nuanced practices and grafting options of dorsal augmentation will improve outcomes and results in rhinoplasty. To better understand the practices of dorsal augmentation among our colleagues. To review the current literature regarding the indications, safety profiles, and outcomes of different…”

Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Facial Plastic Surgery
Year
2015
Authors
2
Type
Journal Article, Review
Access
Subscription
On this site
Summary and abstract

Authors on this site

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2015.

  1. ASJ
    2015PMID 25805279
  2. ASJ
    Rhinoplasty: the nasal bones - anatomy and analysis
    Lazovic GD, Daniel RK, Janosevic LB et al.
    2015PMID 25805278Summary
  3. ASJ
    2015PMID 25568232Summary
  4. APS
    2015PMID 25480746Summary
  5. FPS
    A Rare Late Complication of Rhinoplasty: Dorsal Nasal Cyst
    Aydoğdu İO, Öztürk N, Aksakal İA et al.
    2015PMID 26579868
  6. JAMA FPS
    2015PMID 25978561
  7. PRS
    2015PMID 25626813Summary
  8. PRS
    2015PMID 25626814