Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty

A Survey and Review

Melanie Malone, Steven Pearlman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Understanding the nuanced practices and grafting options of dorsal augmentation will improve outcomes and results in rhinoplasty. To better understand the practices of dorsal augmentation among our colleagues. To review the current literature regarding the indications, safety profiles, and outcomes of different materials used in dorsal augmentation. A PubMed search was performed to capture current articles containing reviews or large series regarding the safety and efficacy of various grafting materials used for dorsal augmentation. Of the many options available, autologous cartilage grafts maintain widespread use for dorsal augmentation and other techniques in rhinoplasty. Homologous cartilage grafts, namely irradiated rib, are a preferred alternative. Irradiated costal cartilage has been shown to have low complication rates and is unique in its abundance of supply, particularly in the revision rhinoplasty. Alloplastic implants, particularly silicone, are prevalent in Asian countries where they are a popular first-line choice. ePTFE has a favorable complication profile in primary rhinoplasty; however, caution is recommended when using ePTFE in revision cases. Porous polyethylene has a higher risk of associated complications than the other alloplastic implants listed, and therefore should be considered thoughtfully. Although cartilage is often the preferred graft for dorsal augmentation, there are many other autogenous, homologous, and alloplastic materials that have been shown to be safe and effective choices when applied in the proper setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number01144
Pages (from-to)289-294
Number of pages6
JournalFacial Plastic Surgery
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 22 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Rhinoplasty
Cartilage
Transplants
Safety
Polyethylene
Ribs
Silicones
PubMed
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • dorsal augmentation
  • revision rhinoplasty
  • rhinoplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty : A Survey and Review. / Malone, Melanie; Pearlman, Steven.

In: Facial Plastic Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 3, 01144, 22.06.2015, p. 289-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Malone, Melanie ; Pearlman, Steven. / Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty : A Survey and Review. In: Facial Plastic Surgery. 2015 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 289-294.
@article{215224d629d14becb0aeab41a46c68f8,
title = "Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty: A Survey and Review",
abstract = "Understanding the nuanced practices and grafting options of dorsal augmentation will improve outcomes and results in rhinoplasty. To better understand the practices of dorsal augmentation among our colleagues. To review the current literature regarding the indications, safety profiles, and outcomes of different materials used in dorsal augmentation. A PubMed search was performed to capture current articles containing reviews or large series regarding the safety and efficacy of various grafting materials used for dorsal augmentation. Of the many options available, autologous cartilage grafts maintain widespread use for dorsal augmentation and other techniques in rhinoplasty. Homologous cartilage grafts, namely irradiated rib, are a preferred alternative. Irradiated costal cartilage has been shown to have low complication rates and is unique in its abundance of supply, particularly in the revision rhinoplasty. Alloplastic implants, particularly silicone, are prevalent in Asian countries where they are a popular first-line choice. ePTFE has a favorable complication profile in primary rhinoplasty; however, caution is recommended when using ePTFE in revision cases. Porous polyethylene has a higher risk of associated complications than the other alloplastic implants listed, and therefore should be considered thoughtfully. Although cartilage is often the preferred graft for dorsal augmentation, there are many other autogenous, homologous, and alloplastic materials that have been shown to be safe and effective choices when applied in the proper setting.",
keywords = "dorsal augmentation, revision rhinoplasty, rhinoplasty",
author = "Melanie Malone and Steven Pearlman",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1055/s-0035-1555616",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "289--294",
journal = "Facial Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0736-6825",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dorsal Augmentation in Rhinoplasty

T2 - A Survey and Review

AU - Malone, Melanie

AU - Pearlman, Steven

PY - 2015/6/22

Y1 - 2015/6/22

N2 - Understanding the nuanced practices and grafting options of dorsal augmentation will improve outcomes and results in rhinoplasty. To better understand the practices of dorsal augmentation among our colleagues. To review the current literature regarding the indications, safety profiles, and outcomes of different materials used in dorsal augmentation. A PubMed search was performed to capture current articles containing reviews or large series regarding the safety and efficacy of various grafting materials used for dorsal augmentation. Of the many options available, autologous cartilage grafts maintain widespread use for dorsal augmentation and other techniques in rhinoplasty. Homologous cartilage grafts, namely irradiated rib, are a preferred alternative. Irradiated costal cartilage has been shown to have low complication rates and is unique in its abundance of supply, particularly in the revision rhinoplasty. Alloplastic implants, particularly silicone, are prevalent in Asian countries where they are a popular first-line choice. ePTFE has a favorable complication profile in primary rhinoplasty; however, caution is recommended when using ePTFE in revision cases. Porous polyethylene has a higher risk of associated complications than the other alloplastic implants listed, and therefore should be considered thoughtfully. Although cartilage is often the preferred graft for dorsal augmentation, there are many other autogenous, homologous, and alloplastic materials that have been shown to be safe and effective choices when applied in the proper setting.

AB - Understanding the nuanced practices and grafting options of dorsal augmentation will improve outcomes and results in rhinoplasty. To better understand the practices of dorsal augmentation among our colleagues. To review the current literature regarding the indications, safety profiles, and outcomes of different materials used in dorsal augmentation. A PubMed search was performed to capture current articles containing reviews or large series regarding the safety and efficacy of various grafting materials used for dorsal augmentation. Of the many options available, autologous cartilage grafts maintain widespread use for dorsal augmentation and other techniques in rhinoplasty. Homologous cartilage grafts, namely irradiated rib, are a preferred alternative. Irradiated costal cartilage has been shown to have low complication rates and is unique in its abundance of supply, particularly in the revision rhinoplasty. Alloplastic implants, particularly silicone, are prevalent in Asian countries where they are a popular first-line choice. ePTFE has a favorable complication profile in primary rhinoplasty; however, caution is recommended when using ePTFE in revision cases. Porous polyethylene has a higher risk of associated complications than the other alloplastic implants listed, and therefore should be considered thoughtfully. Although cartilage is often the preferred graft for dorsal augmentation, there are many other autogenous, homologous, and alloplastic materials that have been shown to be safe and effective choices when applied in the proper setting.

KW - dorsal augmentation

KW - revision rhinoplasty

KW - rhinoplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937413503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937413503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0035-1555616

DO - 10.1055/s-0035-1555616

M3 - Review article

VL - 31

SP - 289

EP - 294

JO - Facial Plastic Surgery

JF - Facial Plastic Surgery

SN - 0736-6825

IS - 3

M1 - 01144

ER -