R P Gruber1,2, M G Galvez3, D D Ulvila4. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. ronaldpgruber@gmail.com. 2. East Bay Aesthetic, Plastic Surgery Center, 491 30th St. Suite 102, 94609, Oakland, CA, USA. ronaldpgruber@gmail.com. 3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the years there have been numerous anecdotal reports of nasal tip enlargement and loss of tip definition post rhinoplasty. Subsequent revisionary procedures not only failed to reduce the tip size but aggravated the problem causing an even larger and less defined nasal tip. The final result was often worse than the preop condition and uncorrectable. METHOD/ RESULTS: Six patients who demonstrated an aggravation of the postop result with subsequent revisionary or secondary surgeries were evaluated to find common causes or circumstances. All patients had 1) worsening of nasal tip result with subsequent procedures, e. g., nasal tip enlargement and/or loss of tip definition with subsequent procedures 2) exhibited substantial postop edema at one or more surgeries and 3) extensive subcutaneous fibrous tissue noted at revisionary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal scenario described is referred to as postrhinoplasty fibrotic syndrome. It is recommended that if revision surgery is necessary by a surgeon, the scale of the surgery should be smaller than that of the primary operation. If yet another revision is necessary that surgery should be of an even smaller scale than the prior surgery. Augmentation rather than reduction rhinoplasty is clearly a better approach. With the surgical philosophy of smaller and/or less surgery with each revision (should it be necessary) the irreversible condition of postrhinoplasty fibrotic syndrome should be avoidable.
BACKGROUND: Over the years there have been numerous anecdotal reports of nasal tip enlargement and loss of tip definition post rhinoplasty. Subsequent revisionary procedures not only failed to reduce the tip size but aggravated the problem causing an even larger and less defined nasal tip. The final result was often worse than the preop condition and uncorrectable. METHOD/ RESULTS: Six patients who demonstrated an aggravation of the postop result with subsequent revisionary or secondary surgeries were evaluated to find common causes or circumstances. All patients had 1) worsening of nasal tip result with subsequent procedures, e. g., nasal tip enlargement and/or loss of tip definition with subsequent procedures 2) exhibited substantial postop edema at one or more surgeries and 3) extensive subcutaneous fibrous tissue noted at revisionary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal scenario described is referred to as postrhinoplasty fibrotic syndrome. It is recommended that if revision surgery is necessary by a surgeon, the scale of the surgery should be smaller than that of the primary operation. If yet another revision is necessary that surgery should be of an even smaller scale than the prior surgery. Augmentation rather than reduction rhinoplasty is clearly a better approach. With the surgical philosophy of smaller and/or less surgery with each revision (should it be necessary) the irreversible condition of postrhinoplasty fibrotic syndrome should be avoidable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Fibrosis; Revision surgery; Rhinoplasty; Secondary surgery