Journal archive · Rib, ear and septal grafts · Complications and management · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2015
Complications associated with autologous rib cartilage use in rhinoplasty: a meta-analysis
Wee JH, Park MH, Oh S, Jin HR.
What this paper says
Pooling 10 studies and 491 patients, rib cartilage rhinoplasty carried a 3.08 percent warping rate, a 5.45 percent rate of raised chest scarring and a 14.07 percent revision rate over a mean follow-up of 33.3 months.
Overview
Rib cartilage taken from the patient is a common source of graft material when a nose needs substantial rebuilding, but it has long been criticised for bending after surgery and for problems at the chest site where it is harvested. No systematic review had tested those criticisms. The authors searched MEDLINE, PubMed and Embase for sources published from 1946 through June 2013 and pooled the eligible studies.
Sections of note
- Included studies had at least 10 patients and reported at least one long-term complication or donor-site problem.
- Excluded were nonhuman studies, reviews, case reports, abstracts, nasal reconstruction cases, donated rib cartilage, and diced or laminated methods.
- Two investigators extracted data independently using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used.
- Ten studies with 491 patients in total, mean follow-up 33.3 months.
- Pooled rates: warping 3.08 percent, resorption 0.22 percent, infection 0.56 percent, displacement 0.39 percent.
- Hypertrophic chest scarring 5.45 percent, pneumothorax 0 percent, revision surgery 14.07 percent. Level of evidence 4.
What it means for a patient
- Serious problems such as infection, graft movement or a collapsed lung were rare in the pooled data.
- The two issues worth discussing before surgery are the graft bending over time and a raised scar on the chest.
- About one in seven patients in these studies went on to have further surgery, though the reasons for revision are not broken down.
- The authors note few eligible studies and inconsistent definitions of complications, so the confidence intervals are wide and true rates may differ.
Why this paper matters
It puts numbers on objections that had been argued from experience rather than data, and it supports rib cartilage as a workable graft source for major nasal rebuilding. What remains unanswered is how these rates compare directly with ear or septal cartilage, and how they change beyond three years.
Terms
- Autologous: taken from the patient's own body.
- Meta-analysis: a statistical pooling of results from several separate studies.
- Warping: gradual bending of a cartilage graft after it is placed.
- Resorption: gradual absorption and loss of grafted tissue.
- Hypertrophic scar: a raised, thickened scar at the incision site.
- Pneumothorax: air leaking into the chest cavity, causing partial lung collapse.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-08; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows. All 1,262 summaries.
From the abstract
“Although autologous rib cartilage is a preferred source of graft material in rhinoplasty, rib cartilage for dorsal augmentation has been continuously criticized for its tendency to warp and for high donor-site morbidities. However, no meta-analysis or systemic review on complications associated with autologous rib…”
Excerpt; the full abstract is on PubMed.
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.
Rib, ear and septal grafts
Modern rhinoplasty builds rather than removes, so the operation runs on cartilage: the septum first, then the ear, then the rib, and when none of those will do, a piece of donated rib from a tissue bank.
Complications and management
Serious complications after rhinoplasty are rare: infection runs under 1% in the two largest single-surgeon series, pooled rib harvests record no pneumothorax, and the bleeding series record no thromboembolism.
Anatomy and nasal analysis
Before any technique is chosen, the nose has to be read: the bone measured, the cartilage counted, the skin assessed, and the result the patient wants agreed on a photograph that is not yet true.
Related papers
Same topic, 2015.
- ASJ Commentary on: Rhinoplasty: The Nasal Bones - Anatomy and AnalysisGruber RP, Gupta D2015PMID 25805279
- ASJ Complications Associated With the Use of Autologous Costal Cartilage in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic ReviewVaradharajan K, Sethukumar P, Anwar M et al.2015PMID 26229125Summary
- ASJ Rhinoplasty: the nasal bones - anatomy and analysisLazovic GD, Daniel RK, Janosevic LB et al.2015PMID 25805278Summary
- ASJ Superior rhinoplasty outcomes with precise nasal osteotomy: an individualized approach for maintaining function and achieving aesthetic goalsGhanaatpisheh M, Sajjadian A, Daniel RK2015PMID 25568232Summary
- ASJ The osseocartilaginous vault of the nose: anatomy and surgical observationsPalhazi P, Daniel RK, Kosins AM2015PMID 25805276Abstract
- APS An Unexpected Rhinoplasty Complication: Bilateral Nasolabial CystOzdogan F, Ozel HE, Esen E et al.2015PMID 26392372Summary
- APS The Soft Triangle: An Often Neglected Area in RhinoplastyKayabasoglu G, Nacar A2015PMID 26195129Summary
- DS Avoiding and Treating Blindness From Fillers: A Review of the World LiteratureBeleznay K, Carruthers JD, Humphrey S et al.2015PMID 26356847Abstract