Journal archive · Preservation rhinoplasty · Dorsum and hump · Open versus closed approach · 2021
Preservation Rhinoplasty (Let-Down Technique) for Endonasal Dorsal Reduction
Montes-Bracchini JJ.
What this paper says
A review arguing that the let down technique preserves the mechanical tension of the nasal framework better than the push down, based on anatomy of the keystone area and nasal valve function.
Overview
Preservation rhinoplasty lowers the bridge rather than removing it, and this article addresses lowering it through incisions inside the nose. The author states no single technique corrects all structures, so analysing the individual patient comes first. The article focuses on the keystone area, where the bony and cartilaginous parts of the bridge meet, and on how the bridge behaves mechanically.
Sections of note
- Review article; the abstract reports no patient numbers, no outcomes, no complications and no follow up.
- The dynamics of the bridge are explained through the concept of biotensegrity, meaning structural stability arising from balanced tension.
- Differences between the push down and let down techniques are addressed from the standpoint of nasal valve physiology.
- The author states the let down technique maintains the tensegrity of the nasal pyramid.
- The stated general position is that preservation should be preferred over removal in most cases, and repositioning preferred over manipulation.
What it means for a patient
- Push down and let down are two ways of lowering the same framework, differing in whether bone is removed at the sides.
- The argument for let down here is mechanical, that it keeps the framework under balanced tension, and by extension keeps the airway open.
- This is expert opinion. No breathing measurements, patient numbers or outcomes are reported.
Why this paper matters
Which of the two bony techniques to use is the practical decision in dorsal preservation, and it is usually framed by hump height. This article frames it instead by airway physiology. The claimed valve advantage of the let down has not been measured here.
Terms
- Let down technique: lowering the nasal framework after removing a wedge of bone at the sides.
- Push down technique: lowering the framework by pushing it into the face without removing side bone.
- Keystone area: the junction where the nasal bones meet the cartilage of the bridge.
- Nasal valve: the narrowest part of the nasal airway, where airflow is most restricted.
- Biotensegrity: the idea that a structure holds its shape through balanced tension rather than rigid parts.
- Endonasal: performed through incisions inside the nose, with no external scar.
Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows. All 1,262 summaries.
From the abstract
“Preservation rhinoplasty has been a trending topic in the rhinoplasty literature. There is no single technique that can correct all structures; therefore, patient analysis is paramount. This article focuses on the anatomy of the keystone area and the dynamics of the dorsum explained through the biotensegrity concept.…”
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.
Preservation rhinoplasty
Preservation rhinoplasty lowers the hump by taking cartilage and bone out from underneath and letting the roof of the nose settle, instead of cutting the roof off and rebuilding it.
Dorsum and hump
The hump is the commonest reason people ask for rhinoplasty and the step that decides most of what follows: take the roof off and the middle vault has to be rebuilt, keep the roof and it may push its way back up.
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, 2021.
- ASJ 2021PMID 33141889
- ASJ Expanding Indications for Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty With Cartilage Conversion TechniquesKosins AM2021PMID 32185397Summary
- ASJ Reducing Dorsal Hump Recurrence Following Push Down-Let Down RhinoplastyTuncel U, Aydogdu IO, Kurt A2021PMID 32492137Summary
- ASJ Rhinoplasty: Aesthetic Augmentation With Improvement of Dorsal Aesthetic LinesZholtikov V, Golovatinskii V, Ouerghi R et al.2021PMID 33674857Summary
- APS Crushed Cartilage and Autologous Fat for Dorsal Nasal RefinementGowda AU, Pourtaheri N, Park KE et al.2021PMID 33821313Full text
- APS 2021PMID 33469699
- APS 2021PMID 33399951Summary
- ENTJ Outcomes of Endonasal Septoplasty and Extracorporeal Septal Reconstruction in Anterocaudal Septal DeviationTian Q, Chu T, Sun H et al.2021PMID 31996042Abstract