Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Rhinoplasty is one of the most popular aesthetic plastic surgeries worldwide. The effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) in patients undergoing rhinoplasty are still being studied to guide a better management.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effects of TXA in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The outcomes evaluated were blood loss, postoperative edema, postoperative ecchymosis, surgery duration and surgeon satisfaction.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 841 patients were included. Overall, TXA reduced total blood loss regardless of dose and administration route (MD = - 39.37 mL; 95% CI = - 62.70 to - 16.05 mL; p = 0.0009; I2 = 92%), using intravenous 10 mg/kg of TXA preoperatively (MD = - 16.30 mL; 95% CI = - 29.49 to - 2.57 mL; p = 0.02; I2 = 61%) and using 1 g of oral TXA preoperatively (MD = - 61.70 mL; 95% CI = - 83.02 to - 40.39 mL; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). TXA also decreased edema (MD = - 0.78; 95% CI = - 1.28 to - 0.27 points; p = 0.003; I2 = 80%) and ecchymosis (MD = - 1.13; 95% CI = - 1.99 to -0.28; p = 0.01; I2 = 93%) on postoperative day one (POD 1). Surgeon satisfaction was increased (SMD = 1.55; 95% CI = 0.33 to 2.77; p = 0.01; I2 = 95%). However, there was no difference in surgery duration (SMD = - 0.26; 95% CI = - 0.56 to 0.04; p = 0.09; I2 = 36%).

CONCLUSION

This study found a significant reduction in blood loss, periorbital edema and periorbital ecchymosis, along with an improvement in surgeon satisfaction. These results hold the potential to optimize the rhinoplasty management by plastic surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

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 .

Limited Incision Rhinoplasty: An Approach for All Primary and Revision Cases

INTRODUCTION

Rhinoplasty was one of the most frequently performed aesthetic surgeries in the USA in 2022. Traditionally, the open approach has been preferred by the majority of surgeons often due to familiarity and ease of visualization. However, patient interest in closed and preservation rhinoplasty is driving a resurgence in the popularity of endonasal techniques. We present a series of 100 consecutive endonasal primary and revision rhinoplasty cases using bilateral isolated modified rim incisions.

METHODS

One-hundred consecutive patients underwent closed rhinoplasty via isolated modified rim incisions at a single-surgeon private practice. The senior author performs 100% endonasal rhinoplasty. A retrospective chart review was performed from 06/25/20 to 09/21/22. Information on demographics, complications, and need for revision was collected.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients underwent primary rhinoplasty, 11 underwent secondary rhinoplasty, 4 underwent tertiary rhinoplasty, and 1 underwent quaternary rhinoplasty. Isolated modified rim incisions were used in all cases except in cases of septoplasty when a unilateral Killian incision was added, or in cases of lateral osteotomy when vestibular stab incisions were added. Post-operatively, six (6.0%) patients required revision, all of which were performed under local anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Limited incision rhinoplasty is a reliable surgical approach that produces predictable results with a low revision rate. This technique is highly effective in minimizing soft tissue disruption to ensure safe, reliable, and effective outcomes in primary and revision rhinoplasty. It is an easier technique to learn compared to traditional endonasal and even arguably open rhinoplasty, thus lending itself to widespread adoption especially among novice rhinoplasty surgeons. Level of Evidence IV 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 .

The Difference in Scar-Related Quality of Life in Open Versus Closed Septorhinoplasty

INTRODUCTION

The open and closed techniques are the main surgical techniques to perform septorhinoplasty. Although the open technique offers a better view of the pertinent anatomy and facilitates surgical access, it creates an external scar that could affect patients' satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). This study aims to compare the open and closed techniques using the SCAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we have included patients who had their nasal surgery one year ago, in the period between April 2020 and April 2021. The SCAR-Q assessment tool to study patients' satisfaction with appearance, symptoms, and psychological impact of open and closed septorhinoplasty techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients were included in this analysis. Of these, 39 (50.6%) patients underwent a closed septorhinoplasty, and 38 (49.4%) patients underwent an open approach. The mean (SD) age was 29.6 (8.1) years, and most patients were females (59.7%). The overall SCAR-Q questionnaire responses were very positive across all scales in our cohort, the median (IQR) scores were 91.0 (73.0-100.0) for the appearance scale, 89.0 (70.0-100.0) for the symptoms scale, and 100.0 (87.0-100.0) for the psychological impact scale. However, we have found no differences in SCAR-Q scores regarding appearance, symptoms, and psychological impact between open and closed septorhinoplasty.

CONCLUSION

We have found no significant differences in QoL between open and closed techniques of septorhinoplasty. Larger studies are needed to further validate this finding.