Journal archive · Preservation rhinoplasty · 2025
The Best and Worst of the Structural Preservation Rhinoplasty
Toriumi DM.
What this paper says
A brief article listing the topics covered in a discussion of good and poor outcomes with structural and preservation rhinoplasty; the abstract itself contains only a list of headings and no findings.
Overview
The stated purpose is to discuss good and poor outcomes in structure and preservation rhinoplasty. The abstract reads as a list of section headings rather than a summary. It states that both techniques are time tested, and names the topics addressed: relevant anatomy, use of the piezotome, proper indications, the techniques themselves, and postoperative care.
Sections of note
- Article type: single author review or commentary. No patient numbers, outcomes or complication rates are reported.
- Stated purpose: to discuss good and poor outcomes in structure and preservation rhinoplasty.
- Stated position: both dorsal preservation and structural rhinoplasty are time tested techniques.
- Topics listed: pertinent anatomy, use of the piezotome, proper indications, the techniques, and postoperative care.
- Stated conclusion: both are effective techniques in rhinoplasty.
- The abstract lists headings without content, so no specific good or poor outcomes are identified.
- No comparison, rates or evidence appear.
What it means for a patient
- Nothing substantive can be drawn from this record.
- The one position stated is that neither approach is dismissed, and both are described as effective.
- Proper indications is listed as a topic, which reflects the recurring point that technique choice depends on the individual nose.
- The abstract carries no findings. It identifies no specific outcomes, good or bad.
Why this paper matters
The author is a prominent figure in the preservation debate, so a piece addressing both good and poor outcomes would carry weight in a literature where negative results are rarely published. The abstract as recorded does not convey any of that content. Only the full text would show what is argued.
Terms
- Structural rhinoplasty: the approach that divides and rebuilds the framework with grafts and sutures.
- Dorsal preservation: lowering the bridge while keeping its natural surface intact.
- Piezotome: an ultrasonic instrument that cuts bone while sparing soft tissue.
- Indication: the circumstance in which a technique is considered appropriate.
- Postoperative care: the treatment and instructions given after surgery.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
From the abstract
“To discuss good and poor outcomes in Structure and Preservation rhinoplasty.Dorsal preservation and structure rhinoplasty are time tested techniques.Pertinent anatomy will be discussed.Use of the piezotome is mentioned.Proper indications will be covered.Structure and preservation techniques are discussed.Postoperative…”
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, 2025.
- ASJ Closed Preservation Rhinoplasty in the Mestizo Patient: Challenges and Techniques for Nasal Tip SupportValdivia C, Durand PD, Çakir B2025PMID 39876773Summary
- ASJ Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyAlford JA, McCleary S, Roostaeian J2025PMID 39498873Summary
- ASJ Optimizing Closed-Approach Preservation Rhinoplasty by Ultrasonic Piezo-assisted Techniques for Enhanced PrecisionGuilarte R, Malzone G2025PMID 39812015Summary
- ASJ Radiological and Anatomical Parameters as Determinants of Success in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyKemal Ö, Tahir E, Çolak O et al.2025PMID 40179243Summary
- ASJ Scalpel vs Electrocautery for Upper Lateral Cartilage Contouring in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative StudyŞibar S, Erdal AI, Okutan MT2025PMID 40972537Summary
- APS Combining Piezo and Power Tools for a Better Outcome in Hybrid Structural-Preservation RhinoplastyRobotti E, Khazaal A, Leone F et al.2025PMID 39117869Summary
- APS Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisKim DH, Jang DW, Hwang SH2025PMID 40195129Summary
- APS Double-Tunnel Creation in Mucoperichondrial-Mucoperiosteal Septal Flap to Preserve the Sagittal Stability of Dorsal Components in RhinoplastyRajaee A, Tajik N, Karimi-Galougahi M2025PMID 40195130Summary