Journal archive · Complications and management · 2026
Anesthesia Modalities and Nasal Packing in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review of Complications, Postoperative Management, and Safety Guidelines
Barone M, Amenta A, Rossi S, Brunetti B, D'Emilio R, Caputo MG, Tenna S, Persichetti P.
What this paper says
Across 43 studies, general anaesthesia was used in 72% of rhinoplasties with complication rates equal to sedation or local (though more nausea, 12% versus 7% and 4%), and the literature trends toward minimal or no nasal packing without more bleeding.
Overview
Perioperative practice in rhinoplasty varies widely. The Italian authors searched PubMed and Scopus for January 2000 to May 2025 for studies of rhinoplasty under local, sedation or general anaesthesia and studies comparing packing with no packing, extracting complications, discomfort and packing duration.
Sections of note
- 43 studies included.
- General anaesthesia most common (72%); local with sedation favoured for selected secondary or minor procedures.
- Complication rates similar across modalities; nausea and vomiting 12% general, 7% sedation, 4% local.
- Progressive trend toward minimal or no packing, with less discomfort, quicker recovery and no increase in bleeding; packing duration 24-72 hours where used.
- The authors note some materials (absorbable carboxymethylcellulose sponges, silicone splints) can reduce adhesions, so packing should not be dismissed outright. Level of Evidence II.
What it means for a patient
- All three anaesthesia types are safe when chosen appropriately; general anaesthesia carries somewhat more nausea.
- Packing the nose after surgery is increasingly optional; if used, it is usually out within one to three days.
- Whether packing is used, and what kind, depends on the operation; silicone splints are different from gauze packing.
Why this paper matters
It consolidates the evidence on two everyday decisions that affect patient comfort more than the final result. Limits: heterogeneous studies, no pooled statistics, mostly observational data.
Terms
- Nasal packing: material placed inside the nose after surgery to control bleeding and support the septum.
- Synechiae: scar bands between nasal surfaces that can block airflow.
- Sedation: medication to relax the patient while awake, combined with local anaesthetic.
- Silicone splint: a thin sheet placed against the septum to hold it straight and prevent adhesions.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-08; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.
Abstract
Background: Rhinoplasty is one of the most commonly performed facial plastic surgeries worldwide. Despite its frequency, there is significant heterogeneity in perioperative management, particularly regarding the choice of anesthesia-local, local with sedation, or general-and the postoperative use of nasal packing. A clear, evidence-based consensus on safety and outcomes is lacking.
Objective: To systematically review the literature comparing anesthesia techniques used in rhinoplasty and their associated complication rates, and to assess the indications, benefits, risks, and duration of nasal packing postoperatively. The aim is to identify whether current evidence supports standardized safety protocols or guidelines.
Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted for studies published from January 2000 to May 2025. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting outcomes of rhinoplasty under local, sedation, or general anesthesia, and studies comparing the use vs. nonuse of nasal packing post-surgery. Outcomes evaluated included intraoperative and postoperative complications, patient-reported discomfort, and mean duration of nasal pack placement.
Results: Forty-three studies were included. General anesthesia remains the most frequently used method (72%), with local anesthesia with sedation favored in selected secondary or minor procedures. Complication rates were not significantly different across anesthesia modalities, although general anesthesia had a slightly higher incidence of nausea and vomiting (12%) compared to sedation (7%) and local (4%). Regarding nasal packing, the literature shows a progressive trend toward minimal or no packing, citing lower patient discomfort, quicker recovery, and no increase in postoperative bleeding. The average duration of packing ranged from 24 to 72 hours.
Conclusions: Current literature supports the safe use of all anesthesia modalities in rhinoplasty when appropriately selected. Nasal packing appears increasingly avoidable in routine cases, without compromising safety. However, a lack of unified guidelines persists. The development of evidence-based perioperative protocols could standardize care and reduce variability in clinical practice. It should also be underlined that certain packing materials, such as carboxymethylcellulose-based absorbable sponges or silicone splints, can in fact reduce the risk of synechiae formation by maintaining separation of mucosal surfaces during healing. Thus, the blanket statement that packing is a source of synechiae must be nuanced: The material, duration, and indication are critical determinants.
Level Of Evidence Ii: 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
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topic, cited line by line to PubMed.
Related papers
Same topic, 2026.
- ASJ Preoperative Serotonin Antidepressants Are Associated With Increased Postoperative Complications Following Rhinoplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched AnalysisZontag N, Skorochod R, Wolf Y2026PMID 41672725Summary
- APS Comparative Efficacy of Desmopressin, Tranexamic Acid, and Phenylephrine in Reducing Bleeding and Improving Surgical Field Quality during Rhinoplasty: A Triple-Blind Randomized Controlled TrialZamani MR, Abbasi R, Imani B et al.2026PMID 41028612Summary
- APS Comparison of Postoperative Edema Between Sub-SMAS and Subperichondrial Dissection Planes in Rhinoplasty Using Ultrasonographic Skin Thickness MeasurementsKaplan GO, Tan AA, Yıldızdal S2026PMID 41928003Summary
- APS Ethnic Considerations in Rhinoplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes and Complications in Caucasian Versus Non-Caucasian PatientsHashemipour Y, Danesh HA2026PMID 40906288Summary
- APS Revision Rhinoplasty in Retrocolumellar PerforationGöde S, Aliyeva A, Apaydın MB et al.2026PMID 42082664Summary
- FPSAM Comparison of Upper and Lower Eyelid Edema and Ecchymosis Following Rhinoplasty: A Study of Osteotome Versus Piezoelectric TechniquesVural O, Koycu A2026PMID 40566666Summary
- FPSAM Invited Commentary on: Fincher et al.'s "Biochemical, Mechanical, and Warping Behavior of Fresh Frozen Costal Cartilage Allograft": A Look into Rib Grafts to Be Used for Rhinoplasty from Human DonorsTorabi SJ, Tollefson TT2026PMID 42493871
- FPSAM Invited Commentary on: Uzunoğlu et al.'s "The Effect of Subperiosteal Drain Placement on Periorbital Edema and Ecchymosis Following Ultrasonic Piezoelectric-Assisted Rhinoplasty: A Prospective Comparative Study"Wilson J 4th, Toriumi DM2026PMID 41452185