ABSTRACT
Reduction rhinoplasty has been widely criticised and dismissed due to the current preference for structural rhinoplasty. The criticism is related to airway compromise and secondary structural deformities, both early and late, due to overzealous resection. This two-year study attempted to prospectively assess the risk of airway and structural problems following reduction rhinoplasty in 30 consecutive patients. The findings showed no statistically significant difference either in the NOSE score (subjective sense of breathing) or in nasal valving (objective observations), at the 3-month follow-up. Subsequent 12-month telephone reviews revealed no change in the patients' functional or aesthetic outcomes. There was a 3% structural complication rate (requiring secondary surgery) and a 20% rate for further refining reduction surgery. The findings confirmed the author's impression that conservative, measured reduction rhinoplasty, performed with due consideration to preserving the nasal supportive framework, is a technique well worth endorsing with confidence to reduce the disproportionately large nose. Contemporary surgeons need not feel obliged to only use the more complex later-developed structural rhinoplasty techniques.
