Modern Aspects of Closed and Open Rhinoplasty (Literature Review)

Abstract

Open and closed rhinoplasty are two primary approaches to nasal modification. According to the current literature, there is no consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists regarding the preferred method in terms of aesthetic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. This review aims to analyze published scientific materials to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to more favorable patient outcomes. For this systematic review, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and conducted a literature search across four databases according to our search strategy. The articles were then imported into COVIDENCE, where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. A total of twenty studies were selected for this review after analyzing 243 articles. Among them, there were four case series, twelve retrospective cohort studies, one prospective cohort study, one case-control study, and two outcome studies. The analysis included three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that addressed both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies used both open and closed rhinoplasty techniques, while four focused exclusively on open rhinoplasty. Both methods demonstrated high satisfaction rates among patients and professionals, with no significant advantage found for either technique. Based on the available studies, we cannot conclude the superiority of either open or closed rhinoplasty in achieving better patient outcomes. Several studies indicated that both open and closed rhinoplasty resulted in comparable levels of patient satisfaction. To enhance the reliability and consistency of outcome reporting, authors should focus on using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale and other standardized rhinoplasty outcome assessments.