Evolution of aesthetic rhinoplasty: an analysis of surgical techniques and outcomes at the Dr. Eduardo Liceaga General Hospital of Mexico (2019-2025)

Correa Dip Elliott Chamin; Díaz Avila Diana Vianney; López Gutiérrez Diego; Torres Piña Raymundo; Ugalde Vitelly Juan  Antonio

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20252158

Authors

Correa Dip Elliott Chamin Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico
Díaz Avila Diana Vianney Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico
López Gutiérrez Diego Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2956-1075
Torres Piña Raymundo Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico
Ugalde Vitelly Juan Antonio Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, General Hospital of Mexico “Dr. Eduardo Liceaga”, Mexico

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20252158

Keywords:

Advantages, Open vs closed, Rhinoplasty, Techniques

Abstract

Background: Rhinoplasty is a highly sought-after surgical procedure that has evolved with the concepts of function and aesthetics, achieved through precise modification of bony and cartilaginous structures using both open and closed approaches. To analyze the surgical techniques employed in aesthetic rhinoplasty between 2019 and 2025 at the Hospital General de México Dr. Eduardo Liceaga (HGM).

Methods: A retrospective, descriptive, observational study was conducted on 300 patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Demographic data, type of rhinoplasty (primary/secondary), surgical approach (open/closed), incisions, osteotomies, grafts and complications were organized and analyzed within an excel table. Patient satisfaction was assessed via telephone surveys.

Results: The sample was predominantly female (65%) with a mean age of 34.5 years. The majority underwent primary rhinoplasty (82%). Open and closed approaches were distributed almost equally (52% vs. 48%). The complication rate was 12%, with no significant differences between the two approaches. Overall satisfaction was high (8.5/10 for function and 8.0/10 for aesthetics), with a slight trend toward greater aesthetic satisfaction with the open approach.

Conclusions: The choice between open and closed approaches should be based on nasal anatomy, patient goals and the surgeon's experience. Both techniques produce satisfactory results, underscoring the importance of minimizing complications to improve patient perception.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Gowen L, Mawr B. Two types of rhinoplasties explained–cosmetic vs functional. 2019.

Shaye DA. The history of nasal reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;29(4):259-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000730

Gupta R, John J, Ranganathan N, Stepanian R, Gupta M, Hart J, et al. Outcomes of closed versus open rhinoplasty: a systematic review. Arch Plas Surg. 2022;49(5):569-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756315

2020 Plastic Surgery Statistics. 2021. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics. Accessed on 21 December 2024.

ISAPS. 2023. Global survey 2023: Full report and press releases. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Avaialble at: https://www.isaps.org/discover/about-isaps/global. Accessed on 21 January 2025.

MAY H. The Rethi incision in rhinoplasty. Plas Reconst Surg. 1951;8(2):123-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-195108000-00006

Kljajic V, Radmanovic J, Vlaski L, Savovic S. Rhinoplasty: Open Techniques. Adv Aesth Rhinoplas: Art, Sci, Clin Tech. 2013;2:357-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28053-5_25

Gökçe Kütük S, Arıkan OK. Evaluation of the effects of open and closed rhinoplasty on the psychosocial stress level and quality of life of rhinoplasty patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(8):1347-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.03.020

Armengou X, Frank K, Kaye K, et al. Facial anthropometric measurements and principles–overview and implications for aesthetic treatments. Fac Plast Surg. 2024;40(03):348-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1770765

Jayarajan R, Natarajan A, Nagamuttu R. Outcomes of closed versus open technique of rhinoplasty during primary repair of unilateral cleft lip: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):74–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618787689

Furtado IR. Nasal morphology-harmony and proportion applied to rhinoplasty. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica. 2023;1:599-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2016RBCP0100

Obeid FM, Al Qurashi AA, Mortada H, Abualnaja AA, Alqahtani RF, Alqam RA, et al. Self-esteem post-rhinoplasty: A detailed analysis of influencing factors. Saudi J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;4:675-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/sjoh.sjoh_46_23

Gholami M, Vaezi A. Comparison of the effects of external and internal lateral nasal osteotomies on ecchymosis, periorbital edema, and step off deformity after rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg. 2019;8(3):345.

Castro López I. Rhinoplasty at the General Hospital of Mexico: A retrospective analysis (Specialty Thesis). National Autonomous University of Mexico, Faculty of Medicine. 2018.

Azzawi SA, Kidd T, Shoaib T. Closed rhinoplasty: a single surgeon experience of 238 cases over 2 years. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;74(3):255-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-01990-y

Layliev J, Gupta V, Kaoutzanis C, Ganesh Kumar N, Winocour J, Grotting JC, et al. Incidence and preoperative risk factors for major complications in aesthetic rhinoplasty: analysis of 4978 patients. Aesth Surg J. 2017;37(7):757-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx023