Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Soft Versus Hard Implants in Dorsal Nasal Augmentation: A Comparative Clinical Study

  • Original Article
  • Aesthetic
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Dorsal nasal augmentation plays an important role in cosmetic and reconstructive rhinoplasties performed to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result while creating facial harmony. Although it is known that the ideal implant should be biocompatible, biointegrated, nonabsorbable, and without inflammatory response, the selection of an ideal implant still remains controversial as to whether it should be biologic or synthetic. This study introduces a new question: ‘‘What is better for the nasal dorsum, a soft or a hard implant?’’.

Methods

In this study, 21 women and 7 men with a mean age of 23.5 years underwent augmentation rhinoplasty between December 2007 and July 2011. Conchal and septal cartilage grafts and Medpor were categorized as hard implants and applied for 15 patients. Soft implants, inserted in 13 patients, included diced auricular cartilage wrapped in Surgicel sheets, dermofat blocks, and rolls of Prolene mesh.

Results

Patient satisfaction was assessed through simple postoperative questionnaires. The satisfaction rate in the soft implant group was 100 %, whereas the overall satisfaction rate was 82.2 %. Unsatisfactory results and complications were recorded in the hard implant group, which had a dissatisfaction rate of 33.3 %, contributing to a general dissatisfaction rate of 17.8 % in the whole series.

Conclusion

The authors recommend soft implants for both aesthetic and reconstructive surgeries because of their better ability to achieve a dorsum with a smoother contour and pad. Soft implants have fewer complications and higher satisfaction rates and can be applied for most indications using both closed and open methods.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams JS (1987) Grafts and implants in nasal and chin augmentation: a rational approach to material selection. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 20:913–930

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahn J, Honrado C, Horn C (2004) Combined silicone and cartilage implants: augmentation rhinoplasty in Asian patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 6:120–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS (2012) Influence of age on rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(2):248–253. doi:10.1007/s002660119805-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brent B (1979) The versatile cartilage autograft: current trends in clinical transplantation. Clin Plast Surg 6:163–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bullocks JM, Echo A, Guerra G, Stal S, Yuksel E (2011) A novel autologous scaffold for diced-cartilage grafts in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:569–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cardenas JC, Carvajal J (2007) Refinement of rhinoplasty with lipoinjection. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:501–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chauhan N, Warner J, Adamson P (2010) Adolescent rhinoplasty: challenges and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:510–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM (2003) Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:469–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Çöloğlu H, Uysal A, Tiftikçioğlu YÖ, Oruç M, Koçer U, Coşkun E, Ramadan SU, Astarcı MH (2012): Comparison of autogenous cartilage, acellular dermis, and solvent-dehydrated pericardium for the prevention and correction of dorsal nasal irregularities: an experimental study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 36(3):732–741. doi:10.1007/s002660119865-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Colombo G, Caregnato P, Stifanese R, Ferrando G (2010) A vast intranasal filler-induced granulomatous reaction: a case report. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:660–663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Copas JB, Robin AA (1989) The Facial Appearance Sorting Test (FAST): an aid to the selection of patients for rhinoplasty. Br J Plast Surg 42:65–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dancey AL, Perry MJ (2004) Late presentation of alloplastic implant extrusion. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1081–1082

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Deva AK, Merten S, Chang L (1998) Silicone in nasal augmentation rhinoplasty: a decade of clinical experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1230–1237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Erlich MA, Parhiscar A (2003) Nasal dorsal augmentation with silicone implants. Facial Plast Surg 19:325–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ersek RA, Delerm AG (1988) Processed irradiated bovine cartilage for nasal reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 20:540–546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC, Silveira F, Do Lago T, Leite M, Lima W (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76:437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fatemi MJ, Rajabi F, Moosavi SJ, Soltani M (2012) Quality of life among Iranian adults before and after rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(2):448–452. doi:10.1007/s002660119820-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gruber RP, Pardun J, Wall S (2003) Grafting the nasal dorsum with tandem ear cartilage. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1110–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ (1990) Augmentation rhinoplasty: dorsal onlay grafting using shaped autogenous septal cartilage. Plast Reconstr Surg 86:39–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hubbard TJ (1998) Bridge narrowing in ethnic noses. Ann Plast Surg 40:214–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Iannetti G, D’Arco F (1977) The use of lyophilized dura in reconstruction of the orbital floor. J Maxillofac Surg 5:58–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kangesu L, Goodacre TE, Stanley PR (1991) Survival of irradiated glutaraldehyde preserved bovine cartilage in nasal reconstruction: retrospective study. Br J Plast Surg 44:483–485

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lopes D, Andrade B, Vaena M, Mota D (2011) Single-block costal cartilage graft in rhinoplasty. Rev Bras Cir Plast 26:453–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McMahon D, Lin A, Reddy V, Gruber RP (2012) Rhinoplasty sizers. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:72–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Monreal J (2011) Fat grafting to the nose: personal experience with 36 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:916–922

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nguyen A, Pasyk KA, Bouvier TN (1990) Comparative study of survival of autologous adipose tissue taken in transplanted by different techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:378–386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Owsley TG, Taylor CO (1994) The use of Gore-Tex for nasal augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 106 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:241–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Planas J (2011) The use of Integra in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:5–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Powell NB, Riley RW (1987) Cranial bone grafting in facial aesthetic and reconstructive contouring. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:713–719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rees LS, Myers S, Bradbury E (2012) A comprehensive screening, education, and training tool for the psychological assessment of patients seeking aesthetic surgery: “DESIRABLE OP?”. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(2):443–447. doi:10.1007/s002660119808-7

    Google Scholar 

  31. Romo T III (1998) Sclafani A, Sabini P: use of porous high-density polyethylene in revision rhinoplasty and in the platyrrhine nose. Aesthetic Plast Surg 22:211–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sclafani AP, Romo T, Sliver L (1997) Clinical and histological behavior of exposed porous high-density polyethylene implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:41–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sclafani AP, Thomas JR, Cox AJ (1997) Clinical and histologic response of subcutaneous expanded tetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) and porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor) implants to acute and early infection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:328–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tabbal N, Tepper OM (2011) Diced cartilage versus solid grafts in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:580–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tardy ME, Denneny J, Fritsch MH (1985) The versatile cartilage autograft in reconstruction of the nose and face. Laryngoscope 95:523–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tham C, Lai YL, Weng CJ, Chen YR (2005) Silicone augmentation rhinoplasty in an Oriental population. Ann Plast Surg 54(1–5):6–7

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tostes R, Ferreira F, Andrade J, Lima J, Almeida P, Meira A, Ferreira E, Coelho A (2011) Filling the nasal dorsum with Gore-tex in rhinoplasties. Rev. Bras Cir Plast 26:461–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wellisz T, Kanel G, Anooshian RV (1993) Characteristics of tissue response to Medpor porous polyethylene implants in the human facial skeleton. J Long-Term Effect Med Implants 3:223–235

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yanaga H, Imai K, Yanaga K (2009) Generative surgery of cultured autologous auricular chondrocytes for nasal augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:795–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed El-Shazly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

El-Shazly, M., El-Shafiey, H. Soft Versus Hard Implants in Dorsal Nasal Augmentation: A Comparative Clinical Study. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 1019–1027 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9941-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9941-y

Keywords

Navigation