rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Revision and secondary rhinoplasty · Adolescent and aging nose · 2016

JAMA FPS JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery · 2016

A Staging System for Revision Rhinoplasty: A Review

Rodman R, Kridel R.

What this paper says

A proposed classification for revision rhinoplasty, modelled on cancer staging, grading each case by the anatomical problem, the number of grafts required and the number of previous operations, with patient expectations added separately.

Overview

Rhinoplasty has a revision rate of 5 to 15 percent, and cases range from minor corrections done in the office to major reconstructions needing several operations. No uniform scale existed for describing them. The authors borrow the structure of the TNM cancer staging system, which was built to aid planning, indicate prognosis, evaluate results and let clinicians exchange information.

Sections of note

  • The article is a proposal and review, not a study of patients.
  • Stated revision rate for rhinoplasty is 5 to 15 percent.
  • The proposed system is called PGS, with three components.
  • P stands for problem, the specific anatomic anomaly the patient presents with.
  • G stands for graft, based on the number of grafts required. S stands for the number of previous surgical procedures.
  • A fourth category, E for patient expectations, is added after the PGS stage has been determined. Prognosis is framed as what surgery can and cannot achieve, rather than survival.

What it means for a patient

  • The system is intended to make plain, before surgery, how complex a revision will be and therefore what is realistically achievable.
  • Number of previous operations is treated as a factor in its own right, because each one removes tissue and adds scar.
  • Expectations are staged separately from the anatomy, acknowledging that they affect the outcome independently.
  • This is a proposal. No patients were staged, no outcomes were measured, and whether the system predicts results is untested.

Why this paper matters

Revision rhinoplasty results cannot be compared between surgeons without a shared way to describe how difficult each case was, which is why published series are hard to interpret. A standardised staging system addresses that. Whether the PGS grade actually tracks outcome, and whether surgeons apply it consistently, remains to be shown.

Terms

  • Revision rhinoplasty: an operation to correct the result of previous nasal surgery.
  • Staging system: a standard way of classifying how severe or complex a case is.
  • TNM system: the standard cancer staging system, based on tumour, nodes and metastasis.
  • Prognosis: the expected outcome of a condition or treatment.
  • Anatomic anomaly: a structural abnormality in the nose.
  • Graft: a piece of tissue, usually cartilage, added to support or reshape an area.

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

From the abstract

“Rhinoplasty is known to be one of the more technically challenging cosmetic procedures, with a revision rate of 5% to 15%. Reasons for revisions may range from minor deformities that can be treated in the office to major cosmetic and functional defects that require multiple surgical procedures to correct. The…”

Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.

Citation

PubMed
Journal
JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery
Year
2016
Authors
2
Type
Journal Article, Review
Access
Subscription
On this site
Summary and abstract

Start here

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

Related papers

Same topic, 2016.

  1. CPS
    2016PMID 26616707Summary
  2. CPS
    Revision Rhinoplasty
    Loyo M, Wang TD
    2016PMID 26616705Summary
  3. FPS
    2016PMID 26862968Summary
  4. FPS
    2016PMID 27494585Summary
  5. FPS
    Rhinoplasty of the Aging Nose
    Toriumi DM, Rosenberger E
    2016PMID 26862965Summary
  6. FPS
    2016PMID 27494586Summary
  7. FPS
    2016PMID 26862969Summary
  8. FPS
    2016PMID 28033636Summary