JPRAS open · 2026
Nasal retainers in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction of non-cleft patients: A narrative review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cortés Fuentes Ignacio, Fuenzalida Rozas César, Bravo Cordero Gustavo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nasal retainers (also referred to as conformers or stents) are increasingly used after rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction in non-cleft patients, but their indications, outcomes, and safety profile are not well established. We aimed to summarize the available evidence and propose indications for their use.
METHODS: A narrative review was conducted. A structured search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and SciELO was performed between November 2025 and February 2026, without language or time restrictions, using predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies reporting postoperative use of nasal retainers after aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty or nasal reconstructive surgery were included, excluding those limited to patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, comprising case reports, small case series, and a single randomized controlled trial involving non-cleft patients undergoing rhinoseptoplasty, correction of nostril stenosis, and reconstruction after trauma, burns, or oncologic resection. Across studies, retainers were typically custom-made or commercial silicone devices used for weeks to months postoperatively. Most reports describe improved nostril symmetry and nasal function, high patient tolerance, and infrequent minor complications.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There is a biological rationale for the use of nasal retainers in modulating healing and scar formation after nasal surgery. Available evidence, though limited in quality, together with this biological rationale and clinical experience, suggests that nasal retainers may represent a useful adjunct in selected aesthetic and reconstructive nasal procedures, particularly in patients at higher risk of contracture or asymmetry. These observations are best understood as hypothesis-generating and expert opinion-based, as current evidence is limited and well-designed comparative studies are needed to more robustly define their effectiveness.
METHODS: A narrative review was conducted. A structured search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and SciELO was performed between November 2025 and February 2026, without language or time restrictions, using predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies reporting postoperative use of nasal retainers after aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty or nasal reconstructive surgery were included, excluding those limited to patients with cleft lip and/or palate.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, comprising case reports, small case series, and a single randomized controlled trial involving non-cleft patients undergoing rhinoseptoplasty, correction of nostril stenosis, and reconstruction after trauma, burns, or oncologic resection. Across studies, retainers were typically custom-made or commercial silicone devices used for weeks to months postoperatively. Most reports describe improved nostril symmetry and nasal function, high patient tolerance, and infrequent minor complications.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There is a biological rationale for the use of nasal retainers in modulating healing and scar formation after nasal surgery. Available evidence, though limited in quality, together with this biological rationale and clinical experience, suggests that nasal retainers may represent a useful adjunct in selected aesthetic and reconstructive nasal procedures, particularly in patients at higher risk of contracture or asymmetry. These observations are best understood as hypothesis-generating and expert opinion-based, as current evidence is limited and well-designed comparative studies are needed to more robustly define their effectiveness.