Fat Grafting to the Nose
Background: Autologous fat grafting is a safer and convenient alternative to permanent or semipermanent injectables due to better results and fewer and lesser side effects than synthetic injectables.
Objectives: The author reports his experience in fat grafting to the nose using his personal technique in 48 consecutive patients. The experience covers primary treatments of non-operated noses, treatment of postrhinoplasty deformities, and the combination of fat grafting to the nose with rhinoplasties.
Methods: The technique used by the author for fat grafting to the nose does not differ too much from that used in other body or face areas. It is based in the atraumatic extraction of fat fragments using a multi-orifice cannula and the injection of these fragments using 1.4–1.6-mm cannulas or needles. When combining rhinoplasties with fat grafting, fat grafts were used instead of prosthesis or cartilage grafts in the same location.
Results: The initial analysis of postoperative results showed a good to high level of patient satisfaction, particularly in primary cases, with virtually absence of complication or severe side effects. Some easily corrected side effects were probably learning curve dependent.
Conclusions: Autologous fat grafting is an effective and reliable technique to perform aesthetic and reconstructive nose reshaping in those patients who refuse surgical treatments. Although clinicians can get optimal results with this technique, these are not comparable to those obtained by surgical rhinoplasties, and this is an important issue to discuss with the prospective patient.
KeywordsOphthalmic Artery Cartilage Graft Secondary Case Facial Artery Nasal Dorsum
- 5.Monreal J (2005) Instrumental alternativo en los injertos de grasa autóloga. Cir Plast Iberlatinamer 31(2):137–146Google Scholar
- 6.Monreal J (2008) Injerto de grasa en fosa piriforme. Revista de la AECEP 8:27–30Google Scholar
- 8.Coleman SR (2009) Fat injection. From filling to regeneration. Quality Medical Publishing, Inc., St. Louis, pp 423–447Google Scholar