Journal archive · Revision and secondary rhinoplasty · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2021
Revision Rhinoplasty after Open Rhinoplasty: Lessons from 252 Cases and Analysis of Risk Factors
Sibar S, Findikcioglu K, Pasinlioglu B.
What this paper says
In a series with a 10.8 percent revision rate, using a strut graft instead of the tongue in groove technique raised the risk of inadequate tip rotation 5.3 fold and of a hanging columella 5.9 fold.
Overview
The study screened patients who needed aesthetic revision after open rhinoplasty for risk factors. Two hundred and fifty two patients who underwent revision were included. The deformity present before each revision was recorded and tested statistically against the patient's nasal shape before the original surgery and against the surgical techniques used.
Sections of note
- Retrospective analysis of 252 revision patients; risk study, level of evidence III.
- The overall revision rate was 10.8 percent.
- The three commonest aesthetic reasons for revision were insufficient tip rotation, 37.7 percent, hanging columella, 30.2 percent, and supratip deformity, 28.6 percent.
- Using a strut increased the risk of inadequate tip rotation 5.3 fold compared with the tongue in groove technique.
- Inadequate tip projection before surgery doubled the risk of inadequate rotation.
- Being older than 40 increased the risk of hanging columella 6.8 fold.
- Using a strut instead of tongue in groove increased hanging columella risk 5.9 fold and supratip deformity risk 2.2 fold.
- The authors recommend tongue in groove, or over rotating the tip, in older patients with low tip projection and rotation.
What it means for a patient
- About one in nine patients in this practice needed a further operation.
- Two thirds of revisions concerned the tip area, specifically its rotation, the columella hanging low, or a fullness above the tip.
- The technique used to fix the tip was the strongest modifiable factor identified.
- This is retrospective single centre data, so the technique comparison was not randomized and other differences between cases may explain the result.
Why this paper matters
Tip technique choice is made in every rhinoplasty and its downstream consequences are rarely quantified. This study links two common tip methods to specific later deformities with numerical risk estimates. Whether switching technique reduces revisions prospectively has not been shown.
Terms
- Tongue in groove: sliding the tip cartilages onto the front edge of the septum to set tip position.
- Strut graft: a cartilage post placed between the nostrils to support the tip.
- Tip rotation: how far upward the tip is angled.
- Hanging columella: the strip between the nostrils sitting lower than the nostril rims.
- Supratip deformity: a fullness or bulge on the bridge just above the tip.
- Logistic regression: a statistical method predicting a yes or no outcome from several factors.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“In this study, patients who required aesthetic revision surgery after open rhinoplasty were retrospectively screened for risk factors. Methods: Two hundred fifty-two patients who underwent revision were included in the study. Nasal deformities before the revision were determined for each patient and evaluated in terms…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.
Revision and secondary rhinoplasty
181 papers on this topic.
Anatomy and nasal analysis
325 papers on this topic.
Related papers
Same topic, 2021.
- ASJ 3D Virtual Planning for Rhinoplasty Using a Free Add-On for Open-Source SoftwareSobral DS, Duarte DW, Dornelles RFV et al.2021PMID 33581695Summary
- ASJ Commentary on: 3D Virtual Planning for Rhinoplasty Using a Free Add-On for Open-Source SoftwareLekakis G2021PMID 33675636
- ASJ Commentary on: Comparison of Changes in Nasal Skin Sensation After Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty Procedures Using Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament TestingBlau JA, Marcus JR2021PMID 33829246
- ASJ Commentary on: The Value of Averageness in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Humans Like Average NosesSarwer DB2021PMID 33590830Full text
- ASJ 2021PMID 33231626
- ASJ Comparison of Changes in Nasal Skin Sensation After Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty Procedures Using Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament TestingAkyigit A, Keleş E, Yıldırım YSS et al.2021PMID 33738466Summary
- ASJ Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the Dutch FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Questionnaires Using Rasch AnalysisDeclau F, Pingnet L, Verkest V et al.2021PMID 33945612Summary
- ASJ Rhinoplasty: Aesthetic Augmentation With Improvement of Dorsal Aesthetic LinesZholtikov V, Golovatinskii V, Ouerghi R et al.2021PMID 33674857Summary