Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2014; 30(03): 268-276
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1376872
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Open Rhinoplasty Concepts in Facilitating Tip Reconstruction

Marcello Carminati
1   USC Chirurgia Plastica (Department of plastic Surgery), Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
,
Enrico Robotti
1   USC Chirurgia Plastica (Department of plastic Surgery), Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 June 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The nose is a frequent site for skin cancer, accounting for approximately 26% of basal cell carcinomas and approximately 13% of spinal cell carcinomas of the facial district. Also melanomas, mostly as lentigo maligna melanomas, are frequently located at the nasal pyramid. Although defects can be of varying size and depth, some even involving the whole trilaminar structure of the nose, most remain superficial and seldom reach and infiltrate the underlying framework. In contrast, they can be wide, thus requesting large flaps to resurface the defect. Although a technically well-planned and well-performed surgery can lead to excellent aesthetic results, scars from both donor and recipient sites can be noticeable. Since skin cancers generally affect older people, we often deal with aged noses. Such noses typically present some common features such as plunging tip, increased length, and a prominent hump due to several reasons, already well described in the literature. In this scenario, by reducing and addressing the framework, we can obtain a variable quota of downsizing of the original defect, thus requiring less skin for coverage, and thus reducing the size of needed flaps and consequent scars. This is greatly facilitated by the open rhinoplasty approach. Most of the maneuvers aimed at reducing the framework are indeed the same.

Keywords

nasal framework - nasal reconstruction - aging nose - open rhinoplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Shanoff LB, Spira M, Hardy SB. Basal cell carcinoma: a statistical approach to rational management. Plast Reconstr Surg 1967; 39 (6) 619-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pollack SV, Goslen JB, Sherertz EF, Jegasothy BV. The biology of basal cell carcinoma: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 1982; 7 (5) 569-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Freeman RG, Knox JM. Treatment of skin cancer. South Med J 1967; 60 (3) 241-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Burget GC, Menick FJ. The subunit principle in nasal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 76 (2) 239-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burget GC. Aesthetic restoration of the nose. Clin Plast Surg 1985; 12 (3) 463-480
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rohrich DR, Muzaffar AR. In search of the ideal nose. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105 (7) 2568-2569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mendelson B, Wong CH. Changes in the facial skeleton with aging: implications and clinical applications in facial rejuvenation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (4) 753-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Millard Jr DR. Aesthetic reconstructive rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 1981; 8 (2) 169-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marchac D, Toth B. The axial frontonasal flap revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99: 1873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heller N. Subcutaneous pedicle flaps in facial repair. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 27 (5) 421-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hynes B, Boyd JB. The nasolabial flap. Axial or random?. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114 (12) 1389-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar