rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Septum, valve and airway · Complications and management · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2026

EAO Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol · 2026

Surgical repair of large nasal septal perforation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cheung MH, Kim CH, Nguyen SA, Close M, Snyder V, Hwang MS.

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 septal perforation.

Abstract

Purpose: Large nasal septal perforations (NSP) pose significant surgical challenges due to limited tissue availability, increased mucosal tension, and reduced vascularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) evaluates closure outcomes across surgical techniques for large NSP (≥ 20 mm) and answer in patients with large nasal septal perforations, how do different surgical approaches compare in terms of successful closure and failures?

Methods: A SRMA were performed on studies employing surgical repair of large NSP (≥ 20 mm). Meta-analyses of continuous measures and proportions and comparison of weighted proportion were performed for demographic and outcomes.

Results: Thirty-eight studies comprising 408 patients with large NSP were included. The mean perforation dimensions were 22.5 mm (length), 21.3 mm (width), and 24.4 mm (diameter). Common etiologies were iatrogenic (61.2%), idiopathic (36.5%), trauma (31.4%), and drug use (28.4%). Symptoms included nasal obstruction (62.0%), crusting (49.9%), and epistaxis (45.7%). Overall surgical closure rate was 84.4% (95% CI, 80.7-87.6). By technique, success rates were 88.2% for mucosal advancement, 86.6% for interpositional grafts, 72.7% for graft-flap combinations, and 91.8% for other approaches (pedicled/composite flaps, implants). Failures with mucosal advancement were predominantly reperforations, whereas interpositional and combination repairs more often failed due to inability to achieve initial closure.

Conclusions: Surgical repair of large NSP achieves high success rates, though outcomes vary by technique. Mucosal advancement and interpositional grafts demonstrate comparable effectiveness, while graft-flap combinations perform less reliably. Larger defects remain the strongest predictor of failure, underscoring the importance of tailored surgical planning and careful technique selection.

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Year
2026
Authors
6
Type
Journal Article, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis
Access
Open access
On this site
Full abstract

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2026.

  1. ASJ
    2026PMID 42374829Abstract
  2. ASJ
    2026PMID 42415377Summary
  3. ASJ
    2026PMID 41990353Summary
  4. ASJ
    2026PMID 42670247Summary
  5. ASJ
    2026PMID 42013314Summary
  6. ASJ
    2026PMID 41369038Summary
  7. ASJ
    2026PMID 41672725Summary
  8. ASJ
    2026PMID 42455863