Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invited Discussion on: Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Dorsal Reduction Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Nasal Patency and Aesthetic Outcomes by Rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales

  • Editor’s Invited Discussion
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Alan MA, Kahraman ME, Yuksel F, Yucel A (2023) Comparison of dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction rhinoplasty: analysis of nasal patency and aesthetic outcomes by rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS scales. Aesthet Pl Surg

  2. Most SP, Barrera JE, Larrabee WF (2022) Increasing levels of evidence in rhinoplasty: stepping up our role as leaders in the specialty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 24(3):162–164. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2022.0147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdelwahab M, Patel PN (2021) Conventional resection versus preservation of the nasal dorsum and ligaments: an anatomic perspective and review of the literature. Fac Plast Surg Clin North Am 29(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2020.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdelwahab MA, Neves CA, Patel PN, Most SP (2020) Impact of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus dorsal hump resection on the internal nasal valve: a quantitative radiological study. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01627-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel PN, Friedman O, Kandathil CK, Most SP (2021) Preservation rhinoplasty: evolution and current state of practice in the United States. Facial Plast Surg 37(1):81–85. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1722910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel PN, Kandathil CK, Buba CM et al (2022) Global practice patterns of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 24(3):171–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpsam.2021.0055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedman O, Ulloa FL, Kern EB (2021) Preservation rhinoplasty: the Endonasal Cottle push-down/let-down approach. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 29(1):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2020.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patel PN, Abdelwahab M, Most SP (2021) Combined functional and preservation rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 29(1):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2020.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel PN, Kandathil CK, Most SP (2020) Outcomes of combined anterior septal reconstruction and dorsal hump reduction. Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28611

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM (2006) Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 20(5):463–470. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patel PN, Kandathil CK, Abdelhamid AS, Buba CM, Most SP (2022) Matched cohort comparison of dorsal preservation and conventional hump resection rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03156-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Sam P. Most

Authors
  1. Sam P. Most
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam P. Most.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No relevant disclosures or conflicts of interest involving the work under consideration for publication, or relevant financial activities outside the submitted work, or any other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or give the appearance of potentially influencing, what is written in the submitted work. No aspect of this manuscript or the data described are previously published.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Most, S.P. Invited Discussion on: Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Dorsal Reduction Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Nasal Patency and Aesthetic Outcomes by Rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 735–737 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03253-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03253-x

Search

Navigation