Journal archive · Preservation rhinoplasty · Dorsum and hump · 2022
Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty
Almazov I, Rovira RV, Farhadov V.
What this paper says
Using ultrasonic instruments through incisions inside the nose in 134 preservation rhinoplasty patients, satisfaction was rated excellent in 96 percent at 12 months, with two residual humps and four residual asymmetries.
Overview
Piezoelectric instruments made work on the bony part of the nose predictable and controlled, but they are most often used with the open approach. The closed approach has been tied to standard bone cutting methods, including cuts made through the skin, which the authors say limits control over the thickness and surface of the bony walls and risks uncontrolled fractures. This study applied ultrasonic instruments through the closed approach with preservation technique.
Sections of note
- Retrospective analysis of 134 patients; the journal assigns level of evidence IV.
- The approach was closed, meaning all incisions were inside the nose, with complete dissection beneath the perichondrium and periosteum.
- Patients were grouped by the method used on the bony framework: push down, let down with rhinosculpture, or combinations.
- Assessment used the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation before surgery and 12 months after.
- Average patient age was 28; 125 were female and 9 male.
- Satisfaction was excellent in 96 percent of cases.
- Two cases had residual humps and four had residual asymmetries in severely deviated noses.
- The authors state limitations are an underdeveloped bridge, cleft lip noses, post traumatic cases and previous rhinoplasty.
What it means for a patient
- The closed approach leaves no external scar, and ultrasonic instruments allowed the bone work to be done without one.
- Six of 134 patients had a residual hump or asymmetry at one year.
- The authors exclude several patient groups from the technique, including anyone with previous nasal surgery or trauma.
- This is a retrospective single group series with no comparison against the open approach.
Why this paper matters
Ultrasonic bone instruments spread alongside the open approach because they need direct view, which pushed surgeons toward an external incision. This series argues the two can be separated. Whether closed piezo work matches open results has not been compared directly.
Terms
- Piezoelectric instrument: a powered tool that cuts bone with high frequency vibration.
- Closed or intranasal approach: surgery through incisions inside the nose only.
- Preservation rhinoplasty: keeping and repositioning the existing framework rather than rebuilding it.
- Push down and let down: two ways of lowering the bony framework of the nose.
- Rhinosculpture: reshaping the bone surface rather than cutting through it.
- Subperichondrial dissection: separating tissue beneath the membrane covering the cartilage.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“The application of piezoelectric instruments (PEIs), which made the work with the nasal pyramid a predictable and controlled stage of rhinoplasty, is still more often related to the open approach. The intranasal approach is constantly associated with standard methods of osteotomies, including percutaneous techniques,…”
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.
Preservation rhinoplasty
193 papers on this topic.
Dorsum and hump
227 papers on this topic.
Related papers
Same topic, 2022.
- ASJ Commentary on: Computed Tomography Analysis of Nasal Anatomy in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyMost SP2022PMID 34546291
- ASJ Computed Tomography Analysis of Nasal Anatomy in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyEravci FC, Özer H, Arbağ H et al.2022PMID 34436559Summary
- ASJ 2022PMID 35443047Summary
- APS Invited Discussion on: Quality of Life And Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty Using The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation QuestionnaireGruber RP, Deptula P, Conkling N2022PMID 35320375
- APS 2022PMID 35299264
- APS Piezo-Assisted Dorsal Preservation in Rhinoplasty: When and WhyTaglialatela Scafati S, Regalado-Briz A2022PMID 33987697Summary
- APS Quality of Life (QoL) and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty (PR) Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire-A Prospective Observational Single-Centre StudyStergiou G, Schweigler A, Finocchi V et al.2022PMID 35169915Summary
- APS Reply to: Invited Discussion on: Quality of Life and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation QuestionnaireBarone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P2022PMID 35737021Summary