Skip to main content

Reply to: Invited Discussion on: Quality of Life and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire

Abstract

Rhinoplasty is certainly the most creative and exciting intervention in the field of plastic surgery due to the possibility of associating the technical procedures with the inventiveness and artistic sense of the surgeon. In addition, the position of the nose in the center of the face and the impact of its changes in social relationships have made this intervention the protagonist of all plastic surgery from the very beginning. Most of the publications up to the end of the 90s concerned the closed approach to rhinoplasty. And then there was a lot of discussion about the open approach and the comparison with the closed one. More recently this division into two strands has been lost due to the personalization of each surgeon. Very recently, a third philosophical approach to rhinoplasty has been added, namely “preservation rhinoplasty” which is a more conservative and much less aggressive approach. This trend translates into two techniques, the push down and the let down. The possibility of obtaining a totally smooth nasal contour after the correction of a hump, leaving this area intact, was emphasized by Saban and Ciakir and has garnered the enthusiasm of many surgeons around the world. Apart from the ongoing discussions on the indications for the push down technique and its complications, preservation rhinoplasty has the great merit of having paved the way for a less aggressive rhinoplasty and with the use of a very fine and precise dissection. The idea of my rhinoplasty, the result of daily clinical practice, is always that of a balanced and personalized rhinoplasty in which the imperfections of the nose and functional problems are corrected, but which has as its ultimate goal the maintenance of the patient's characteristics.

Level of Evidence V 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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Gruber RP, Deptula P, Conkling N (2022) Invited discussion on: quality of life and outcome after preservation rhinoplasty using the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02820-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldman IB (1957) The importance of the mesial crura in nasal-tip reconstruction. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 65(2):143–147. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1957.03830200039005

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ponti L (1969) Diagnostic problems and suggestions in the functional and aesthetical nose surgery. In: Proceedings of the ninth international congress, Mexico, D.F. August 10–14

  4. Johnson CM Jr, Toriumi DM (1990) Open structure rhinoplasty. WB Sauders Co, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Toriumi DM (2006) New concepts in nasal tip contouring. Arch Facial Plast Surg 8(3):156–185. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.8.3.156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Daniel RK (2018) The preservation rhinoplasty: a new rhinoplasty revolution. Aesthet Surg J 38(2):228–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annalisa Cogliandro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not required.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barone, M., Cogliandro, A. & Persichetti, P. Reply to: Invited Discussion on: Quality of Life and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Aesth Plast Surg (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02915-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02915-6

Keywords

  • Rhinoplasty
  • Plastic surgery
  • Cosmetic surgery