№6(8) 2025

DOI 10.37219/2528-8253-2025-6-40

Fastovets IO, Zaporozhets TYu
ANALYSIS OF AUTOLOGOUS CARTILAGE GRAFTS USAGE IN SECONDARY RHINOPLASTY
Fastovets Ivan O
Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Postgraduate student of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Postgraduate Education
Email: V_fa100vets@ukr.net
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9172-1193
Zaporozhets Tatyana Yu
Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Assistant of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Postgraduate Education
Email: doc.zaporozhets@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4468-3360

Abstract

Relevance: Secondary rhinoplasty represents a complex surgical challenge due to scar tissue formation, disruption of anatomical landmarks, and donor material deficiency following previous interventions. The selection of optimal autologous cartilage graft type for nasal structural support restoration remains a subject of scientific debate and requires clear stratification based on deformity characteristics.

Objective: To analyze the frequency of different autologous cartilage graft types usage in secondary rhinoplasty, to assess the frequency and nature of postoperative complications, and to evaluate surgical treatment outcomes depending on the cartilage type used and deformity characteristics.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 73 secondary rhinoplasty cases using autologous cartilage grafts was conducted from February 2019 to December 2023. Patient demographics, surgical history, deformity type and characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using Python 3.11 with Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Fisher’s exact test, and Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results: The mean patient age was 32.4±8.7 years, with female predominance (80.8%). Costal cartilage was used most frequently (63% of cases), particularly in complex deformities. Open transcolumellar approach was employed in 90.4% of cases. Overall complication rate was 8.2%, with graft resorption (4.1%) and hematoma formation (2.7%) being most common. Significant risk factors for complications were identified: smoking increased complication rates from 2.2% to 22.2% (p=0.01), multiple previous surgeries elevated risk from 2.3% to 20.7% (p=0.006). Functional improvement in nasal breathing was achieved in 84.9% of patients, with aesthetic satisfaction in 91.8%.

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the necessity of individualized approach to autologous cartilage graft selection in secondary rhinoplasty. Costal cartilage remains the optimal choice for complex reconstructions, while septal and auricular cartilage are appropriate for smaller-volume deformities. Smoking, multiple previous surgeries, autoimmune diseases, and operative duration are key risk factors requiring careful preoperative assessment and modification.

Keywords: secondary rhinoplasty, autologous cartilage grafts, costal cartilage, nasal septum, nasal cavity, nasal deformity, nasal breathing, rhinoplasty complications, nasal surgical reconstruction, nose.

References

  1. Hacker S, Pollock J, Gubisch W, Haack S. Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Sep 1;148(3):532-541. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008216.
  2. Vila PM, Jeanpierre LM, Rizzi CJ, Yaeger LH, Chi JJ. Comparison of Autologous vs Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts in Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Apr 1;146(4):347-354. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.4787.
  3. Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR, Davis KS, Doghramji K, Farrior EH, Finestone SA, Ishman SL, Murphy RX Jr, Park JG, Setzen M, Strike DJ, Walsh SA, Warner JP, Nnacheta LC. Clinical Practice Guideline: Improving Nasal Form and Function after Rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Feb;156(2_suppl):S1-S30. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683153.
  4. Santos GN, Navarro SEV, Ibarra AA, Ovalle SAL, Barrera EV, et al. (2020) Secondary Rhinoplasty Using Autologous Rib Cartilage: A Review. J Otolaryngol Rhinol 6:073. doi.org/10.23937/2572-4193.1510073
  5. McGuire C, Samargandi OA, Boudreau C, Whelan A, Bezuhly M. Prevention of Autologous Costal Cartilage Graft Warping in Secondary Rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2020 Jul-Aug;31(5):1246-1250. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000006429.
  6. Liyanage D, Vayalapra S, Murdeshwar H, Suresh JJ, Usman H, Bailey-Lewis E, Bailón-Valdez Z, Khajuria A. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2024 Dec 18;7:ojae122. doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojae122.
  7. Li X, Ge X, Liu Z, Wang Y, Xu J, Song P. Effect of Y-shaped Nasal Columella Made of Autologous Cartilage in Secondary Nasal Deformity after Cleft Lip Surgery. Ann Ital Chir. 2024;95(5):816-824. doi: 10.62713/aic.3647.
  8. Suresh R, Doval AF, Newstrom E, Pham T, Alford EL. Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience and Patient Satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Sep 13;9(9):e3798. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003798.
  9. De Gabory L, Fricain JC, Stoll D. [Resorption of cartilage grafts in rhinoplasty: fundamental basis]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2010;131(2):83-8. [Article in French].
  10. Park H, Kim Y, Choi JW. Asian rhinoplasty using a thin rib cartilage graft and ultrafine diced cartilage wrapped in fascia: A comparative study between septal cartilage graft and rib cartilage graft. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023 Feb;77:262-270. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.11.022.
  11. Goljanian Tabrizi A, Ghazizadeh M, Rootivand Z. Harmonizing Beauty and Function: A Comprehensive Exploration of Patient Satisfaction in Rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg. 2024;13(1):43-49. doi: 10.61186/wjps.13.1.43.
  12. Nocini R, Chirumbolo S, Pirayesh A, Rahman E, Kapoor KM, Caliskan G, Bertossi D. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Scale. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2022 Jan-Jun;12(1):60-68. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_244_21. Epub 2022 Aug 16.
  13. Hacker S, Pollock J, Gubisch W, Haack S. Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Sep 1;148(3):532-541. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008216.
  14. Li Z, Zhang W, Jin M, Dang W, Pan X, Lin W, Han J, Zhen Y, An Y. Long-Term Resorption Rates of Conchal and Rib Cartilage Grafts in Nasal Tip Plasty in Asian Patients: A Retrospective Study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jul;49(13):3638-3647. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-04699-x.
  15. Tugertimur B, Datta S, Goote P, Morris M, Phelan A, Lucas A, Bernstein J, Hanna SA, Mattos D, Reish RG. Evaluating the Safety of Rhinoplasty in Smokers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025 May 28. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012226.
  16. Erol O, Koycu A. The Effect of Smoking on Septoplasty and Septorhinoplasty Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022 Jun;46(3):1378-1384. doi: 10.1007/s00266-021-02683-9.
  17. Andrews JE, Jones NN, Moody MP, Vincent AG, Teixeira JC, Thomas RF, Hohman MH. Nasoseptal Surgery Outcomes in Smokers and Nonsmokers. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2021 Jul-Aug;23(4):283-288. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0349.
  18. Bouhadana G, ElHawary H, Alam P, Gilardino MS. A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2024 Feb;32(1):115-126. doi: 10.1177/22925503221085083.
  19. Wang X, Dong W, Fan F. Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):1109e-1110e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009584.
  20. Sharif-Askary B, Carlson AR, Van Noord MG, Marcus JR. Incidence of Postoperative Adverse Events after Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Mar;145(3):669-684. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006561.