Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Supratip Deformity Rhinoplasty Treatment & Management

  • Author: Gregory A Buford, MD; Chief Editor: Mark S Granick, MD, FACS  more...
 
Updated: Mar 02, 2014
 

Medical Therapy

Proper preoperative surgical planning and identification of those patients at highest risk for the deformity are the hallmarks for prevention of supratip deformity. Though many patients demonstrate mild degrees of supratip prominence following removal of the dorsal splint and dressings, aside from supratip taping, immediate intervention generally is not recommended.

To address supratip prominence, Gruber advises waiting 4-6 weeks after surgery, at which time he injects 1-2 mg of triamcinolone (0.1-0.2 mL of 10 mg/mL triamcinolone) into the supratip with an equal volume of lidocaine.[19] The patient is evaluated the following week and the dose repeated as necessary. This regimen then is repeated for several weeks as needed.

Guyuron stresses the importance of preoperative identification of those patients at risk.[4] For patients with a history of prior hypertrophic or keloid scarring and those with noticeably sebaceous oily skin, he suggests prophylactic Kenalog injection into the supratip region at the time of surgery, emphasizing the need for deep injection and avoidance of dermal instillation. In patients who develop noticeable supratip fullness within 1-3 months after surgery, he recommends early aggressive taping (1-3 mo postoperatively) of the supratip region for as many hours as the patient tolerates. If this proves unsuccessful, he proceeds with steroid injection (0.1-0.2 mL of triamcinolone 40 mg/mL or 0.2-0.4 mL of 20 mg/mL) into the supratip swelling. If no improvement is noted after 3 injections, he suggests waiting for at least 1 year before attempting surgical intervention.

Although subcutaneous steroid injection may prove effective at resolving or at least minimizing the appearance of the postoperative supratip deformity, it must be used with caution to avoid associated stigmata. Local complications including telangiectasias, thinning of the skin, and poor healing can result from local installation, and the patient should be warned of these potential adverse events before proceeding with therapy.

The newest medical treatment for supratip deformity involves injection of calcium hydroxylapatite into the deep dermis or dermal-subcutaneous junction above the affected area. The injected substance can then effectively be molded to shape and used to build up and diminish the lower prominence by creating a continuous nasal dorsal profile. Treatment can be performed using topical numbing cream and takes as little as 15 minutes. The result can then be expected to last 8-12 months or longer.

Next

Surgical Therapy

Timing of surgical intervention to address the supratip deformity is equally as important as the overall approach. Although early revision may be tempting, it also may prove disastrous. Nonoperative measures should be exercised and exhausted before surgical plans are made, and these plans should not be pursued before 12 months following the initial surgery. Prior to surgical revision, the nose should be analyzed through a systematic approach focusing on all aspects of its architecture. If possible, obtain old operative records or notes in the planning of this procedure.

The deformity first is defined through a detailed history and complete aesthetic facial and nasal analysis. Next, its etiology is identified. Are displaced anatomic structures present? Have structural components been underresected (incomplete surgery) or overresected (overzealous surgery), or has a combination thereof occurred? From here, surgical goals are established. Finally, a treatment plan is formulated. Displaced anatomic structures must be repositioned appropriately. Areas of underresection should be identified and the proper amount and location determined. Likewise, in areas of overresection, missing tissue should be identified and replaced as needed. Finally, the optimal method of approach (closed vs open) is determined based on the overall findings and the deformity itself.[20]

In addressing the deformity, Sheen suggested making a proper diagnosis of the abnormality, limiting dissection, using only autogenous graft material, and designing a well-defined preoperative concept of the aesthetic goal. Although he acknowledged that the deformity can reflect local underresection or overresection, in his experience, most were the end result of overzealous resection and inadequate tip support. For these, he advocated autologous augmentation of the dorsal septum and proper tip grafting.

For those patients in whom underresection was the culprit, Rees et al suggest trimming the high dorsum, excising scar tissue, and lowering the upper lateral cartilages, as necessary.[15] Although he recognized the effectiveness of increasing tip projection through columellar advancement and alar cartilage modification, he advised against the use of alloplastic materials or autogenous grafts to achieve this end, warning of the risk of extrusion or resorption. He also argued against overresection of the upper lateral cartilages, the end result of which can be "...unsightly grooves on either side of the midline of the nasal dorsum below the nasal lines..." that he said are "...almost impossible to correct...."[15]

In an analysis of the deformity, Guyuron suggested that "...the simplest type of secondary supratip deformity is an overprojected caudal dorsum...."[4] He believed this can be corrected by resection of excessive cartilage. In patients with thick skin, he advocated placing a supratip stitch to optimize coaptation of the dorsal skin envelope over the modified cartilaginous framework, adding that the goal should be to create a 6- to 8-mm differential between the tip and supratip apices to achieve aesthetically pleasing supratip definition.

For the underprojected tip, he recommended tip grafts if the lobule is small or columellar struts if the lobule is of adequate size. For the underprojected mid vault, he proposed the use of septal, costochondral, or conchal cartilage grafts. For the cephalically oriented lower lateral cartilages, he suggested simply repositioning them to address supratip prominence. Finally, he supported Sheen's conclusion that most supratip deformities are the result of overzealous resection and that the deformity is the end product of scar tissue formed in response to overresection and creation of dead space.[4]

Review of the comprehensive literature describing both the supratip deformity and its correction suggests an approach tailored not only to diagnosing the problem but also, of equal importance, to identifying its etiology. In the end, the best method for preventing the secondary supratip is to avoid it altogether. This can be accomplished only through a systemic preoperative analysis of the nasal architecture and a focused surgical plan.

Previous
Next

Preoperative Details

In the case of a supratip deformity caused by a previous attempt at a rhinoplasty, a detailed discussion must be carried out with the patient. One feature that is worth emphasizing is that in a secondary or tertiary procedure, the resolution of edema may be slower than in the primary procedure.

Previous
Next

Postoperative Details

While a close follow-up is important in all rhinoplasty patients, it is of particular import in patients who have undergone previous attempts at correction of the deformity. Because of their past experience, they may be significantly more anxious or demanding than "routine" rhinoplasty (ie, patients undergoing their first procedure).

Previous
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Gregory A Buford, MD Medical Director, BEAUTY by BUFORD; President, Center for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery; Owner/Manager, Core Aesthetics, LLC; Owner/Manager, Kismet Communications, LLC; Co-Owner/Manager, Kismet Group, LLC

Gregory A Buford, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Colorado Medical Society

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Allergan<br/>Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Allergan<br/>Received consulting fee from Allergan for speaker/national trainer.

Coauthor(s)

Armand R Lucas, MD 

Armand R Lucas, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Dean Fardo, MD Private Practice, Atlanta

Dean Fardo, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Manish H Shah, MD Shah Aesthetic Surgery

Manish H Shah, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

George Peck, MD 

George Peck, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Mark S Granick, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery, Chief, Division of Plastic Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School

Mark S Granick, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Phi Beta Kappa, Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons, New Jersey Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Waterjel, Inc.; Reconstat, LLC; DSM<br/>Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Novadaq<br/>Received none from Waterjel Inc. for board membership; Received none from Reconstat LLC for board membership; Received none from Open Science Co., LLC for board membership.

Additional Contributors

Frederick J Menick, MD Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine; Facial and Nasal Reconstructive Surgeon, Tucson, Arizona

Frederick J Menick, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Converse JM. Corrective rhinoplasty. Converse JM, ed. Reconstructive Plastic Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 1977. 1152.

  2. Sheen JH. A new look at supratip deformity. Ann Plast Surg. 1979 Dec. 3(6):498-504. [Medline].

  3. Sheen JH. Secondary rhinoplasty. Sheen JH, ed. Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1978. 464.

  4. Guyuron B, DeLuca L, Lash R. Supratip deformity: a closer look. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Mar. 105(3):1140-51; discussion 1152-3. [Medline].

  5. Labrakis G. The universal nose of early childhood: nature's aid in understanding the supratip deformity and its correction. Ann Plast Surg. 1992 Jul. 29(1):55-7. [Medline].

  6. Daniel RK. Secondary rhinoplasty following open rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Dec. 96(7):1539-46. [Medline].

  7. Byrd HS. The supratip break. Presented at: The Dallas Rhinoplasty Symposium. Dallas, TX: 1996.

  8. Klabunde EH, Falces E. Incidence of complications in cosmetic rhinoplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1964 Aug. 34:192-6. [Medline].

  9. McKinney P, Cook JQ. A critical evaluation of 200 rhinoplasties. Ann Plast Surg. 1981 Nov. 7(5):357-61. [Medline].

  10. Swanepoel PF, Eisenberg I. Current concepts in cosmetic rhinoplasty. S Afr Med J. 1981 Oct 3. 60(14):536-44. [Medline].

  11. Stucker FJ, Bryarly RC, Shockley WW. The failed rhinoplasty. Gates GA, ed. Current Therapy in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: BC Decker; 1984. 129.

  12. Stucker FJ. 120 cases of revision rhinoplasty. Sisson GA, ed. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of the Face and Neck: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton; 1975. 29.

  13. O'Connor GB, McGregor MW. Secondary rhinoplasties: their cause and prevention. Plast reconstr surg (1946). 1955 May. 15(5):404-10. [Medline].

  14. Kamer FM, McQuown SA. Revision rhinoplasty. Analysis and treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988 Mar. 114(3):257-66. [Medline].

  15. Rees TD, Krupp S, Wood-Smith D. Secondary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1970 Oct. 46(4):332-40. [Medline].

  16. Johnson C, Toriumi DM. Open Structure Rhinoplasty. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 1990.

  17. Anderson JR. Symposium: the supra-tip in rhinoplasty: a dilemma. III. Supra-tip soft-tissue rounding after rhinoplasty: causes, prevention and treatment. Laryngoscope. 1976 Jan. 86(1):53-7. [Medline].

  18. Deneke HJ, Meyer R. Corrective and Reconstructive Rhinoplasty. NY: Springer-Verlag; 1967. 451.

  19. Gruber RP. Primary open rhinoplasty. Gruber RP, Peck GC, eds. Rhinoplasty, State of the Art. St Louis: Mosby; 1993. 85.

  20. Gunter J. External approach for secondary rhinoplasty. Dallas, TX: Presented at: Dallas Rhinoplasty Symposium; 1999. 291-304.

  21. Aufricht G. Rhinoplasty and the face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969 Mar. 43(3):219-30. [Medline].

  22. Burgess LP, Everton DM, Quilligan JJ, et al. Complications of the external (combination) rhinoplasty approach. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986 Oct. 112(10):1064-8. [Medline].

  23. Cohen S. Complications following rhinoplasty. Plast reconstr surg (1946). 1956 Sep. 18(3):213-26. [Medline].

  24. Constantian MB. Distant effects of dorsal and tip grafting in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992 Sep. 90(3):405-18; discussion 419-20. [Medline].

  25. Farrior EH. Dramatic refinement of the nasal tip. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1999 Aug. 32(4):621-36. [Medline].

  26. Funcik T, Hochman M. The effect of intradermal corticosteroids on skin flap edema. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Jun. 121(6):654-7. [Medline].

  27. Goldman IB. Rhinoplasty; its surgical complications and how to avoid them. J Int Coll Surg. 1950 Mar. 13(3):285-99. [Medline].

  28. Holt GR, Garner ET, McLarey D. Postoperative sequelae and complications of rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1987 Nov. 20(4):853-76. [Medline].

  29. Maliniac JW. Prevention and treatment of late sequelae in corrective rhinoplasty. Am J Surg. 1940. 50:84.

  30. McKinney P, Cunningham BL. Concepts. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1989. 31.

  31. Millard DR. Secondary corrective rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969 Dec. 44(6):545-57. [Medline].

  32. Pardina AJ, Vaca JF. Evaluation of the different methods used in the treatment of rhinoplastic sequelae. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1983. 7(4):237-9. [Medline].

  33. Parkes ML, Kanodia R, Machida BK. Revision rhinoplasty. An analysis of aesthetic deformities. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Jul. 118(7):695-701. [Medline].

  34. Pastorek N. Surgery of the nasal tip. Presented at: the Dallas Rhinoplasty Symposium. Dallas, Tex: 1999.

  35. Pitanguy I. Surgical importance of a dermocartilaginous ligament in bulbous noses. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1965 Aug. 36:247-53. [Medline].

  36. Rogers BO. Rhinoplasty. Goldwyn RM, ed. The Unfavorable Result in Plastic Surgery. Boston: Little Brown; 1972.

  37. Safian J. A new anatomical concept of postoperative complications in esthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973 Feb. 51(2):162-3. [Medline].

  38. Safian J. Fact and fallacy in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1953. 12:24.

  39. Sheen JH. Rhinoplasty: personal evolution and milestones. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Apr. 105(5):1820-52; discussion 1853. [Medline].

  40. Smith TW. As clay in the potter's hand. A review of 221 rhinoplasties. Ohio State Med J. 1967 Aug. 63(8):1055-7. [Medline].

  41. Steiss CF. Errors in rhinoplasty and their prevention. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1961 Sep. 28:276-8. [Medline].

  42. Stucker FJ, Bryarly RC, Shockley WW. Complications in nasal surgery. Ward PH, Berman WE, eds. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of the Head and Neck: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference. St Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book; 1984. 156.

  43. Tebbetts JB. Shaping and positioning the nasal tip without structural disruption: a new, systematic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994 Jul. 94(1):61-77. [Medline].

  44. Thomas JR, Tardy ME. Complications of rhinoplasty. Johns ME, ed. Complications of Head and Neck Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: BC Decker; 1986. 269.

  45. Webster RC. Revisional rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1975 Oct. 8(3):753-82. [Medline].

  46. Wright WK. Study on hump removal in rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1967 Apr. 77(4):508-17. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Aupratip and tip-defining point (cross).
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.