Journal archive · Revision and secondary rhinoplasty · Rib, ear and septal grafts · 2025
A comprehensive overview of FFRG and IHCC allograft cartilages in revision rhinoplasty: a systematic review
Hosseini M, Keyhan SO.
In the archive as a landmark paper: the core sweep runs 2011–2026, and this one is here because the history of rhinoplasty rests on it · cited on costal cartilage harvest.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare the complications and satisfaction associated with favorable allografts, Fresh Frozen Rib Graft (FFRG) and Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage (IHCC), in revision rhinoplasty.
Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to in the conduct of this systematic review. No limitations were applied to the types of studies included. Studies in English were selected without any time limitations. Five databases, PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and also, the reference lists of included studies were searched. The ROBINS-I was employed for risk of bias assessment. Patients who underwent revision rhinoplasty utilizing allografts (FFRG and IHCC) were considered.
Results: The initial search yielded a total of 503 studies. After duplicate removal and paper screening, 7 studies were included. A total of 406 patients for FFRG and 66 patients for IHCC who underwent revision rhinoplasty with the use of FFRG and IHCC were incorporated. Various complications were assessed, including warping, infective/noninfective resorption, infection, extrusion/displacement, and other less common occurrences. The overall complication rates were 9.25% and 15.7% for FFRG and IHCC, respectively. The main complication associated with the two was infection. Notably, both FFRG and IHCC demonstrated significant improvements in patient satisfaction following revision surgery across all subjected studies.
Conclusion: Based on this review, FFRGs present a lower rate of complications in comparison with IHCCs. However, the biocompatibility makes the autologous rib cartilage the gold standard graft, but in case of donor site limitations to harvesting, FFRG and IHCC would be a safe and reliable alternative.
Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).
Citation
Start here
What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.
Revision and secondary rhinoplasty
Between 5% and 15% of rhinoplasties are done again, and the published series say the second operation is a different problem from the first: the cartilage is gone, the skin is scarred and less able to survive, and the airway is usually part of the complaint.
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.
Related papers
Same topic, 2025.
- ASJ Single-Stage Alar Nostril Ring Correction Using Auricular Composite Grafts in Reconstructive RhinoplastySazgar AA, Sazgar AK, Hatami N et al.2025PMID 39676167Summary
- ASJO A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation RhinoplastyLiyanage D, Vayalapra S, Murdeshwar H et al.2025PMID 39896219Full text
- APS A Novel Classification of Nasal Sill Morphology Provides Strategies for Secondary Cleft RhinoplastyXia Y, Yuan J, Wang Z et al.2025PMID 39572464Summary
- APS Autologous Fat Injection for Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review of Satisfaction, Reinjection and Fat RetentionZeng H, Tang S2025PMID 39751904Summary
- APS Conjoint Shield and Onlay Tip Graft, a Duo for Nasal Tip Camouflage and Refinement in RhinoplastyWu L, Wang H, Ma H et al.2025PMID 40195133Summary
- APS Effect of Medical Ozone Therapy in Preventing Compromised Nasal Skin in Revision RhinoplastyAlp A, Polat E, Yenigun A et al.2025PMID 38987315Summary
- APS 2025PMID 40126620Full text
- APS 2025PMID 37962627