Background: When autologous septal cartilage is not enough or even not disposable for graft sculpting in revision rhinoplasty, valid alternatives have to be found. Both autologous and homologous costal cartilage usage has been described in scientific literature. As there is no universally accepted consensus on the cartilage choice to use in these cases, the experiences with the different types of cartilage usage assume significant importance in the rhinoplasty learning process.
Objectives: This multicenter prospective study outlined an overview of the authors' experience regarding short-term and long-term complications following revision rhinoplasty procedures in which either fresh frozen (FFCC), in-alcohol (IACC) or autologous costal cartilage (ACC) was used.
Methods: 671 patients undergoing revision rhinoplasty from June 2015 to September 2020 were divided into three groups according to the type of cartilage used (Group1/FFCC with 212 patients, group2/IACC with 239 patients and group3/ACC with 202 cases). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and short and long-term complications were described and discussed. A statistical analysis investigating a possible significance of the differences in complication rate was conducted.
Results: Authors' data outlined a short-term general complication rate of 5.05%, and a long-term complication rate of 7.04%. A statistically significant difference was identified in cartilage warping rate between the homologous cartilages in comparison to ACC.
Conclusions: FFCC, IACC and ACC can be safely used in revision rhinoplasty with no statistically significant differences regarding short- and long-term complications rate. Cartilage warping rate is significantly higher for ACC in comparison with FFCC and IACC.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.