Journal archive · Nasal tip · Open versus closed approach · 2016
Rapid Resorbable Sutures Are a Favourable Alternative to Non-resorbable Sutures in Closing Transcolumellar Incision in Rhinoplasty
Alinasab B, Haraldsson PO.
What this paper says
Comparing 41 open rhinoplasty patients, dissolving sutures caused significantly less discomfort than removing conventional sutures, with no difference in scar appearance and no infections in either group.
Overview
Open rhinoplasty leaves a small incision across the columella, and the resulting scar is rarely troublesome when carefully closed. Removing the stitches, however, is painful and takes time. The authors compared a rapidly dissolving suture against a conventional non-dissolving one, on discomfort, scarring and infection.
Sections of note
- 58 consecutive patients had open rhinoplasty with inverted-V midcolumellar incisions by one surgeon. 41 (71 percent) were eligible and studied.
- The first 21 patients were closed with non-resorbable polypropylene 5/0, the next 20 with rapidly resorbable irradiated polyglactic acid 5/0.
- Discomfort from removing the polypropylene sutures was compared with trimming the dissolving sutures at the skin surface one week after surgery.
- Trimming caused significantly less discomfort than removal, p at or below 0.01. Six of 21 patients (29 percent) found suture removal very painful.
- 40 of 41 patients (98 percent) found their scars non-disturbing. Scars were rated invisible or almost invisible by 17 of 21 (81 percent) with polypropylene and 18 of 20 (90 percent) with the dissolving suture.
- Twenty independent surgeons assessing photographs at six months or more rated 16 of 21 (76 percent) and 16 of 20 (80 percent) the same way. No infection occurred. Level of evidence 4.
What it means for a patient
- The dissolving suture removes the painful stitch-removal visit without making the scar worse.
- Nearly a third of patients found conventional suture removal very painful, which is why the comparison was made.
- Almost all patients in both groups were untroubled by their scar, and independent surgeons largely agreed.
- Groups were sequential rather than randomly assigned, one surgeon, 41 patients, and 17 of the original 58 were not assessed.
Why this paper matters
The columellar scar is the standing objection to open rhinoplasty, so any change in how it is closed must be shown not to worsen it. This study shows a comfort gain at no measured cost to appearance or infection. Because assignment was by time period rather than chance, technique may have changed alongside the suture.
Terms
- Transcolumellar incision: the small cut across the strip of skin between the nostrils.
- Resorbable suture: a stitch the body breaks down, requiring no removal.
- Polypropylene: a non-dissolving synthetic suture material.
- Polyglactic acid: a rapidly dissolving synthetic suture material.
- Inverted-V incision: a V-shaped incision design used across the columella.
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
“The open approach using inverted-V incisions has gained popularity in both primary and revision rhinoplasty during the last years. The risk of a disturbing columellar scar has been shown to be very low when meticulously closed. However, the suture extractions are usually painful and time consuming. Objectives: To…”
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.
Nasal tip
Tip surgery is now a support problem rather than a sculpting problem: the septal extension graft holds projection and rotation where the columellar strut loses them (0.2% against 4.7% projection loss at one year), and the current series repair, reposition and reinforce the lower lateral cartilages instead of excising them.
Open versus closed approach
Whether the surgeon opens the nose through a small incision across the columella or works entirely through the nostrils has been argued in print since 1973, was put on facing pages of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery by Jack Gunter and Jack Sheen in 1997, and was finally pooled in 2025: across twenty studies and 1,067 patients there is no significant difference in what patients report, in breathing, in complications or in swelling.
Related papers
Same topic, 2016.
- ASJ Anatomical Study of the Lateral Crural Strut Graft in Rhinoplasty and Its Clinical ApplicationSilva Filho Rde O, Pochat VD2016PMID 27277274Summary
- ASJ 2016PMID 27535924
- CPS 2016PMID 26616703Summary
- COOH Update in alar base reduction in rhinoplastyLima LF, Arroyo HH, Jurado JR2016PMID 27261942Abstract
- ENTJ A useful technique for adjusting nasal tip projection in Asian rhinoplasty: Trapezoidal caudal extension cartilage graftingLiu SC, Lin DS, Wang HW et al.2016PMID 26829689Abstract
- FPS Columellar Aesthetics in Open RhinoplastyKridel RW, Kwak ES, Watson JB2016PMID 27494576Summary
- FPS 2016PMID 27494584Summary
- FPS Pollybeak Deformity in Middle Eastern Rhinoplasty: Prevention and TreatmentHussein WK, Foda HM2016PMID 27494583Summary