rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Revision and secondary rhinoplasty · 2024

APS Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · 2024

Limited Incision Rhinoplasty: An Approach for All Primary and Revision Cases

Swamy V, Phelan AL, Abdelrahman A, Albert MG.

What this paper says

Across 100 consecutive rhinoplasties performed entirely through incisions inside the nostril rims, 6 percent required revision, all done under local anesthesia.

Overview

The open approach, with an external incision, has dominated rhinoplasty because it gives direct visibility. The authors note that patient interest in closed and preservation rhinoplasty has revived endonasal techniques, meaning surgery done from inside the nose. They present a consecutive series using bilateral isolated modified rim incisions in both first time and repeat operations.

Sections of note

  • Design: retrospective chart review of 100 consecutive patients at a single surgeon private practice, June 2020 to September 2022. Level of evidence IV. The senior author performs 100 percent endonasal rhinoplasty.
  • Case mix: 84 primary, 11 secondary, 4 tertiary and 1 quaternary rhinoplasty.
  • Isolated modified rim incisions were used in all cases, with a unilateral Killian incision added for septoplasty and vestibular stab incisions added for lateral osteotomy.
  • 6 patients, 6.0 percent, required revision.
  • All revisions were performed under local anesthesia.
  • The authors describe the technique as easier to learn than traditional endonasal and arguably than open rhinoplasty.
  • No aesthetic scores, patient questionnaires or complication data beyond revision rate appear in the abstract.

What it means for a patient

  • The approach leaves no external scar on the strip between the nostrils, since all incisions sit inside the nostril rims.
  • Sixteen of the 100 cases were revisions of previous surgery, including four third and fourth operations, so the technique was not limited to straightforward noses.
  • A 6 percent revision rate is within the range reported for rhinoplasty generally, and all revisions here were minor enough for local anesthesia.
  • Limits: one surgeon who uses only this approach, no comparison group, no patient reported outcomes, and no stated follow up length.

Why this paper matters

The open versus closed debate has run for decades, with the open approach winning on visibility and the closed on tissue preservation. A consecutive series including revision cases tests whether the closed approach can cover the full range. Without a comparison group or outcome scores, it establishes feasibility rather than superiority.

Terms

  • Endonasal or closed rhinoplasty: surgery through incisions inside the nose only.
  • Open rhinoplasty: surgery through an external incision on the strip between the nostrils.
  • Rim incision: an incision just inside the nostril rim.
  • Killian incision: an incision inside the nose used to reach the septum.
  • Lateral osteotomy: a cut along the side wall of the bony nose.
  • Revision rate: the proportion of patients needing a further operation.

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

Abstract

Introduction: Rhinoplasty was one of the most frequently performed aesthetic surgeries in the USA in 2022. Traditionally, the open approach has been preferred by the majority of surgeons often due to familiarity and ease of visualization. However, patient interest in closed and preservation rhinoplasty is driving a resurgence in the popularity of endonasal techniques. We present a series of 100 consecutive endonasal primary and revision rhinoplasty cases using bilateral isolated modified rim incisions.

Methods: One-hundred consecutive patients underwent closed rhinoplasty via isolated modified rim incisions at a single-surgeon private practice. The senior author performs 100% endonasal rhinoplasty. A retrospective chart review was performed from 06/25/20 to 09/21/22. Information on demographics, complications, and need for revision was collected.

Results: Eighty-four patients underwent primary rhinoplasty, 11 underwent secondary rhinoplasty, 4 underwent tertiary rhinoplasty, and 1 underwent quaternary rhinoplasty. Isolated modified rim incisions were used in all cases except in cases of septoplasty when a unilateral Killian incision was added, or in cases of lateral osteotomy when vestibular stab incisions were added. Post-operatively, six (6.0%) patients required revision, all of which were performed under local anesthesia.

Conclusion: Limited incision rhinoplasty is a reliable surgical approach that produces predictable results with a low revision rate. This technique is highly effective in minimizing soft tissue disruption to ensure safe, reliable, and effective outcomes in primary and revision rhinoplasty. It is an easier technique to learn compared to traditional endonasal and even arguably open rhinoplasty, thus lending itself to widespread adoption especially among novice rhinoplasty surgeons. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Year
2024
Authors
4
Type
Journal Article
Access
Open access
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, 2024.

  1. ASJ
    2024PMID 38314894Summary
  2. APS
    2024PMID 38839614Summary
  3. APS
    2024PMID 38379010Summary
  4. APS
    2024PMID 37626136Summary
  5. APS
    2024PMID 38693403Summary
  6. FPSAM
    2024PMID 37115534Summary
  7. FPS Clin
    Secondary Cleft Rhinoplasty
    Liao D, Pereira N, Obayemi A Jr et al.
    2024PMID 37981415Summary
  8. PRS
    2024PMID 38346139Summary