Journal archive · Preservation rhinoplasty · 2020
Decision Making in Preservation Rhinoplasty: A 100 Case Series With One-Year Follow-Up
Kosins AM, Daniel RK.
What this paper says
Across 100 primary cases with at least a year of follow-up, all patients had the covering soft tissue preserved, 54 had the tip cartilages preserved, and 31 had the bridge preserved rather than reduced.
Overview
Preservation rhinoplasty, a term coined in 2018, reshapes the nose by keeping structures intact rather than removing and rebuilding them. This retrospective single-surgeon series records which structures were actually preserved in practice and in what combinations.
Sections of note
- 153 primary rhinoplasty cases studied retrospectively between December 2016 and August 2017; 100 had at least 1 year of follow-up.
- Technical details recorded included dissection plane, ligament preservation, tip support, lateral crural maneuvers, alar contour grafts, and dorsal preservation versus traditional reduction.
- All patients had open rhinoplasty; average follow-up 13 months.
- All patients had preservation of the dorsal soft tissue envelope; in 36 the entire soft tissue envelope and ligaments were preserved.
- 54 had preservation of the alar cartilages; 31 had dorsal preservation.
- Combinations: complete preservation of skin, dorsum and alars in 24; skin and dorsum in 2; alars and dorsum in 2; skin and alars in 7.
- Conclusions: preserve the lateral crura where possible and choose tensioning over excision; dorsal preservation is versatile with proper patient selection. Level of evidence 4.
What it means for a patient
- Preservation is not all or nothing: different parts of the nose can be preserved independently.
- Complete preservation, where nothing is removed and the structures are reshaped in place, applied to 24 of 100 patients.
- Preserving the bridge is described as avoiding long-term problems at the middle vault and keystone area.
- Limits: one surgeon, retrospective, no comparison group against conventional technique, no outcome scores, and average follow-up of 13 months.
Why this paper matters
Preservation rhinoplasty grew rapidly in the years after this paper, and this documents how the approach was actually applied case by case. It shows selection matters: fewer than a third had dorsal preservation. The abstract reports what was done rather than how the results compared.
Terms
- Preservation rhinoplasty: Reshaping the nose while keeping existing structures intact.
- Dorsal soft tissue envelope: The skin, fat and muscle layer covering the bridge.
- Lateral crus: The outer arm of the tip cartilage.
- Tensioning: Reshaping cartilage by putting it under tension rather than cutting it out.
- Keystone: The junction where the nasal bones meet the cartilage of the middle nose.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“Preservation rhinoplasty (PR) is a new chapter in rhinoplasty history. The term was coined by Daniel in 2018 and represents a fundamental change in philosophy. Objectives: The aim of this study is to discuss a single-surgeon case series utilizing PR techniques. Methods: One hundred fifty-three primary rhinoplasty…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
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, 2020.
- ASJ 2020PMID 31621820
- ASJ 2020PMID 31912863
- ASJ 2020PMID 30980075Summary
- APS Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Versus Dorsal Hump Resection on the Internal Nasal Valve: a Quantitative Radiological StudyAbdelwahab MA, Neves CA, Patel PN et al.2020PMID 32016500Summary
- APS 2020PMID 32055938
- APS 2020PMID 32133555Summary
- FPS Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: Core Beam Computed Tomography Analysis of the Nasal Vault, Septum, and Skull Base-Its Role in Surgical PlanningSadri A, East C, Badia L et al.2020PMID 32557440Summary
- FPS Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewLevin M, Ziai H, Roskies M2020PMID 32750725Summary