Open versus closed rhinoplasty: What have we learned?

Alan J C Burke, Ted Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The "open" (external) and "closed" (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate. Advances in surgical techniques and improved understanding of rhinoplasty dynamics ensure that this topic remains contemporary. The addition of structural support to the nose has been one of the more important realizations of rhinoplasty surgery, with a greater trend for leaving intact, native nasal anatomy and reshaping structure with shaping sutures and grafting techniques. This is in contradistinction to older techniques in which resection and reduction methods were primarily used. The best results from rhinoplasty surgery remain the same over time, whether achieved by these different techniques or whether affected by the selection of the external or endonasal approach. In this article, differences between the two approaches are compared, and a subjective grading of their positive and negative attributes is presented and discussed to help guide and shape modern rhinoplasty concepts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)332-336
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Rhinoplasty
Nose
Suture Techniques
Anatomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Open versus closed rhinoplasty : What have we learned? / Burke, Alan J C; Cook, Ted.

In: Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2000, p. 332-336.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{18b682ccb7264225a5813c9fd64fbba9,
title = "Open versus closed rhinoplasty: What have we learned?",
abstract = "The {"}open{"} (external) and {"}closed{"} (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate. Advances in surgical techniques and improved understanding of rhinoplasty dynamics ensure that this topic remains contemporary. The addition of structural support to the nose has been one of the more important realizations of rhinoplasty surgery, with a greater trend for leaving intact, native nasal anatomy and reshaping structure with shaping sutures and grafting techniques. This is in contradistinction to older techniques in which resection and reduction methods were primarily used. The best results from rhinoplasty surgery remain the same over time, whether achieved by these different techniques or whether affected by the selection of the external or endonasal approach. In this article, differences between the two approaches are compared, and a subjective grading of their positive and negative attributes is presented and discussed to help guide and shape modern rhinoplasty concepts.",
author = "Burke, {Alan J C} and Ted Cook",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1097/00020840-200008000-00011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "332--336",
journal = "Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "1068-9508",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open versus closed rhinoplasty

T2 - What have we learned?

AU - Burke, Alan J C

AU - Cook, Ted

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - The "open" (external) and "closed" (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate. Advances in surgical techniques and improved understanding of rhinoplasty dynamics ensure that this topic remains contemporary. The addition of structural support to the nose has been one of the more important realizations of rhinoplasty surgery, with a greater trend for leaving intact, native nasal anatomy and reshaping structure with shaping sutures and grafting techniques. This is in contradistinction to older techniques in which resection and reduction methods were primarily used. The best results from rhinoplasty surgery remain the same over time, whether achieved by these different techniques or whether affected by the selection of the external or endonasal approach. In this article, differences between the two approaches are compared, and a subjective grading of their positive and negative attributes is presented and discussed to help guide and shape modern rhinoplasty concepts.

AB - The "open" (external) and "closed" (endonasal) rhinoplasty approaches remain a subject for debate. Advances in surgical techniques and improved understanding of rhinoplasty dynamics ensure that this topic remains contemporary. The addition of structural support to the nose has been one of the more important realizations of rhinoplasty surgery, with a greater trend for leaving intact, native nasal anatomy and reshaping structure with shaping sutures and grafting techniques. This is in contradistinction to older techniques in which resection and reduction methods were primarily used. The best results from rhinoplasty surgery remain the same over time, whether achieved by these different techniques or whether affected by the selection of the external or endonasal approach. In this article, differences between the two approaches are compared, and a subjective grading of their positive and negative attributes is presented and discussed to help guide and shape modern rhinoplasty concepts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034453111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034453111&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00020840-200008000-00011

DO - 10.1097/00020840-200008000-00011

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0034453111

VL - 8

SP - 332

EP - 336

JO - Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

JF - Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 1068-9508

IS - 4

ER -