Maxillary Augmentation Rhinoplasty Treatment & Management
- Author: Michael Mercandetti, MD, MBA, FACS; Chief Editor: Mark S Granick, MD, FACS more...
Two common surgical approaches are the intranasal and intraoral routes.
The intranasal approach uses an incision made in the lateral vestibule that is brought down to the level of the nasal spine. The vertically oriented incision is located in the membranous portion of the septum and is the primary site of subperiosteal elevation underlying the alar bases.
The surgical approach via the intraoral modality commences with an incision through the gingivobuccal mucosa. The dissection is carried out in the subperiosteal pocket, allowing for adequate exposure of the implant site.
Different materials have been used to correct both premaxillary and maxillary hypoplasia.
Materials such as silicone silastic, cartilage, disced or crushed cartilage and/or bony autografts and/or homografts, hydroxyapatite granules, Mersilene mesh, acellular dermis, porous polyethylene, and, in the past, Proplast and Gore-Tex, have been used (see images below for examples). The choice of implant material used should be based on availability, biocompatibility, rate of extrusion, familiarity with the material, and previous surgical outcomes.
Various custom-shaped implants are also available.
Appropriate assessment of the hypoplastic areas and the expected outcome must be reviewed thoroughly with the patient. The surgeon and patient then should decide on the desired degree of correction.
In either approach, care must be taken to avoid the infraorbital neurovascular plexus. Usually, this does not pose a problem because the subperiosteal dissection is not extended into this area unless the implants used are those described by Hinderer.
Postoperative antibiotics are administered routinely, and the patient is advised to avoid excessive manipulation of the area.
Patients are usually observed the day after surgery, then at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postsurgery. These regimens are tailored as the surgeon sees fit.
Complications related to the implant may arise.
If an autogenic implant is used, the possibility of donor site infection and scarring and autograft contamination exists.
Both synthetic and nonsynthetic grafts may extrude or become infected.
Patient dissatisfaction can also occur from an overcorrection or undercorrection or secondary to implant migration.
Paresthesias stemming from infraorbital nerve injury can result and persist indefinitely. Fortuitously, some paresthesias resolve within 6-12 months.
Outcome and Prognosis
Most of the implant material is nonautogenous in nature. Silicone is relatively inert and has a long history of being well tolerated by the body. Infection can occur with any implanted material in the body. If this were to occur with the silicone implant, it would necessitate removal.
Slippage of the implant can also occur if the pocket is too large. Autogenous material such as cartilage is seldom used in this area. The increased effort to harvest this material and shave it is not often warranted. Septal cartilage can be fashioned into a maxillary onlay graft but "results in the long run may be less predictable than alloplastic correction.”
The patient and surgeon ultimately decide which implant material to use.
Future and Controversies
Newer imaging capabilities allowing for more readily available customizable implant creation will become more prevalent. This technology, coupled with newer implant materials, will lead to less traumatic surgical techniques and elevated patient and physician satisfaction levels.
Cinelli JA. Correction of combined elongated nose and recessed naso-labial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1958 Feb. 21(2):139-42. [Medline].
Byrd HS, Hobar PC. Alloplastic nasal and perialar augmentation. Clin Plast Surg. 1996 Apr. 23(2):315-26. [Medline].
Hinderer UT. Nasal base, maxillary, and infraorbital implants--alloplastic. Clin Plast Surg. 1991 Jan. 18(1):87-105. [Medline].
Watanabe T, Matsuo K. Augmentation with cartilage grafts around the pyriform aperture to improve the midface and profile in binder's syndrome. Ann Plast Surg. 1996 Feb. 36(2):206-11. [Medline].
Goh RC, Chen YR. Surgical management of Binder's syndrome: lessons learned. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010 Dec. 34(6):722-30. [Medline].
Gewalli F, Berlanga F, Monasterio FO, Holmström H. Nasomaxillary reconstruction in Binder syndrome: bone versus cartilage grafts. A long-term intercenter comparison between Sweden and Mexico. J Craniofac Surg. 2008 Sep. 19(5):1225-36. [Medline].
Holmes AD, Lee SJ, Greensmith A, Heggie A, Meara JG. Nasal reconstruction for maxillonasal dysplasia. J Craniofac Surg. 2010 Mar. 21(2):543-51. [Medline].
Cook TA, Wang TD, Brownrigg PJ, Quatela VC. Significant premaxillary augmentation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990 Oct. 116(10):1197-201. [Medline].
Converse JM, Horowitz SL, Valauri AJ, Montandon D. The treatment of nasomaxillary hypoplasia. A new pyramidal naso-orbital mazillary osteotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1970 Jun. 45(6):527-35. [Medline].
Flowers RS. Augmentation maxilloplasty. Terino EO, Flowers RS, eds. The Art of Alloplastic Facial Contouring. Mosby: St Louis; 2000. 129-150.
Romo T 3rd, Shapiro AL. Aesthetic reconstruction of the platyrrhine nose. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Aug. 118(8):837-41. [Medline].
Brink RR. Premaxillary augmentation. Terino EO, Flowers RS, eds. The Art of Alloplastic Facial Contouring. St Louis: Mosby; 2000. 119-127.
Tolleth H. Aesthetics and plastic surgery. Terino EO, Flowers RS, eds. The Art of Alloplastic Facial Contouring. Mosby: St Louis; 2000. 3-11.
Bottini DJ, Gentile P, Cervelli G, et al. Changes in nasal profile following maxillomandibular osteotomy for prognathism. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2013. 14(1):e30-8. [Medline].
Kim WS, Kim CH, Yoon JH. Premaxillary augmentation using autologous costal cartilage as an adjunct to rhinoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Sep. 63(9):e686-90. [Medline].
Mertens C, Decker C, Seeberger R, Hoffmann J, Sander A, Freier K. Early bone resorption after vertical bone augmentation - a comparison of calvarial and iliac grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Mar 27. [Medline].
Guerrerosantos J, Sterzi C. Interpositional cartilage grafts to improve vertical length of the face. J Craniofacial Surg. Nov 2012. 21(6):1666-9. [Medline].
Cochran CS, Ducic Y, DeFatta RJ. Restorative rhinoplasty in the aging patient. Lartngoscope. May 2007. 117(5):803-7. [Medline].
Foda HM. Mersilen mesh in premaxillary augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. may-Jun 2005. 29(3):169-73. [Medline].
Cochran CS, Ducic Y, DeFatta RJ. Restorative rhinoplasty in the aging patient. Laryngoscope. 2007 May. 117(5):803-7. [Medline].
Fanous N, Yoskovitch A. Premaxillary augmentation for central maxillary recession: an adjunct to rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2002 Nov. 10(4):415-22. [Medline].
Foda HM. Mersiline mesh in premaxillary augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2005 May-Jun. 29(3):169-73. [Medline].
Mathog RH, Leonard M, Bevis R. Surgical correction of maxillary hypoplasia. Arch Otolaryngol. 1979 Jul. 105(7):399-403. [Medline].
Nassif PS, Kokoska MS. Aesthetic Facial Analysis. Facial Plast Surg Clin of North Am. November 1999. 7(1):4.