Journal archive · Rib, ear and septal grafts · Complications and management · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2022
Long-Term Complications from Diced Cartilage in Rhinoplasty: A Meta-Analysis
Li J, Sang C, Fu R, Liu C, Suo L, Yan Y, Liu K, Huang RL.
What this paper says
Pooling 14 studies covering 2,380 patients given diced cartilage on the nasal bridge, the overall complication rate was 11.5 percent and 5.3 percent needed revision surgery.
Overview
The study analysed how often long term complications and revision surgery follow the use of diced cartilage grafts to raise the nasal bridge. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for clinical studies on diced cartilage for dorsal augmentation, and a meta analysis pooled the estimated rates of infection, overcorrection, visible irregularity, absorption and revision.
Sections of note
- Systematic review and meta analysis; 14 studies involving 2,380 patients.
- The combined overall complication rate was 11.5 percent.
- The combined revision surgery rate was 5.3 percent.
- Infection was reported at 4.5 percent and visible irregularity at 5.3 percent.
- Overcorrection was reported at 0.7 percent and absorption at 0.5 percent.
- There was no significant difference in visible irregularity between wrapped, glued and free diced cartilage groups, P equals 0.23.
- There was no significant difference in revision surgery between those three groups, P equals 0.71.
- The authors state this is the first comprehensive quantitative report of long term complications for this technique.
What it means for a patient
- About one patient in nine had some complication and one in nineteen needed further surgery.
- Infection and visible irregularity were the two leading problems, at similar rates.
- Absorption of the cartilage, long the main objection to the technique, was rare at 0.5 percent.
- How the cartilage was packaged, whether wrapped in fascia, glued or placed free, made no measurable difference to irregularity or revision.
Why this paper matters
Diced cartilage is the standard material for raising and smoothing the bridge, and surgeons dispute whether it should be wrapped, glued or placed loose. This meta analysis finds no difference between those options and quantifies the underlying complication rates. The included studies were not randomized, so pooled rates carry that limitation.
Terms
- Diced cartilage: cartilage cut into small pieces so it can be shaped like a paste.
- Dorsal augmentation: raising the height of the nasal bridge.
- Wrapped diced cartilage: diced cartilage enclosed in a fascia sleeve.
- Overcorrection: a result with more height or volume than intended.
- Absorption: gradual loss of graft material into the body.
- Meta analysis: a statistical pooling of results from multiple studies.
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
“To analyze the incidences of long-term complications and revision surgery associated with diced cartilage grafts in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for clinical studies on the use of diced cartilage for…”
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, 2022.
- ASJ Commentary on: Computed Tomography Analysis of Nasal Anatomy in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyMost SP2022PMID 34546291
- ASJ Computed Tomography Analysis of Nasal Anatomy in Dorsal Preservation RhinoplastyEravci FC, Özer H, Arbağ H et al.2022PMID 34436559Summary
- ASJ Spreader Graft vs Spreader Flap in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Aesthetic and Functional OutcomesKeyhan SO, Fallahi HR, Cheshmi B et al.2022PMID 34864854Summary
- ASJO Current and Future Photography Techniques in Aesthetic SurgeryParsa S, Basagaoglu B, Mackley K et al.2022PMID 35156020Full text
- APS Aesthetic Science of Rhinoplasty: Three PrinciplesGruber RP, Holland M, Rochlin D et al.2022PMID 35441238Summary
- APS Anatomical Comparative Study of the External Nasal Nerve in Caucasian and Asian: Application for Minimizing Nerve Damage in RhinoplastyChen Y, Carr CB2022PMID 34498142Summary
- APS Comparison of Free Diced and Multiple Toothpick-Shaped Costal Cartilage Injection Techniques for Augmentation RhinoplastyGu T, Li X, Yang X et al.2022PMID 34595596Summary
- APS Comparison of the Effect of Spreader and T-Splay Graft in Internal Nasal Valve ManagementKapı E, Kopal C, Seyhan T et al.2022PMID 35201376Full text