Preservation Rhinoplasty: Open or Closed?

BACKGROUND

Preservation rhinoplasty (PR) is an evolving philosophy.

OBJECTIVES

The open approach was initially utilized, but the author felt a closed approach might be of benefit in certain patients.

METHODS

A total 162 primary rhinoplasty cases were studied retrospectively between May and November 2020. One hundred cases had at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients had follow-up at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery. Technical details were recorded, including dissection planes, preservation of the dorsum (DP) vs component reductions, surface vs foundational DP techniques, and open vs closed approach.

RESULTS

One hundred patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. Fifty-six patients underwent an open approach and 44 a closed approach. Eighty-three patients had preservation of the dorsal soft tissue envelope. All patients who underwent a closed approach had preservation of the dorsal soft tissue envelope. Sixty-seven patients underwent DP, with 38 receiving surface techniques and 29 undergoing impaction techniques. Thirty-three patients underwent structural rhinoplasty with piezoelectric osteotomies and mid-vault reconstruction. All structural cases were performed employing an open approach. Four revision surgeries were necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Open and closed approaches have indications depending on the tip and dorsal deformities. A closed PR is favored with thin skin, minimal dorsal modification, osseocartilaginous preservation (foundation techniques), less complex tip deformities, and overprojected noses. An open PR is favored for extensive dorsal modification, S-shaped nasal bones, complex tip deformities, and tip augmentation. Structural dorsal rhinoplasty is always conducted open and preferred for complex dorsal deformities and severe septal deviations.