rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · by topic

Non-surgical rhinoplasty

Injecting hyaluronic acid into the nose takes fifteen minutes, satisfies almost everyone who has it, lasts eight to fourteen months, and carries one risk that no amount of satisfaction offsets: filler entering an artery, which in 22 published cases took the patient's sight and gave it back to only 27% of them. Everything in this literature is a trade between that risk and the fact that, for the right complaint, a syringe does what an operation would otherwise have to.

Where these 88 papers were published

  • 29Aesthetic Plastic SurgeryAesthetic Plast Surg
  • 14Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryPlast Reconstr Surg
  • 10Facial Plastic SurgeryFacial Plast Surg
  • 10Facial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic MedicineFacial Plast Surg Aesthet Med
  • 8Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenPlast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
  • 7Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North AmericaFacial Plast Surg Clin North Am
  • 6Aesthetic Surgery JournalAesthet Surg J
  • 3Clinics in Plastic SurgeryClin Plast Surg
  • 1JAMA Facial Plastic SurgeryJAMA Facial Plast Surg

11 further papers on this topic came in through the history rather than the archive query: Beleznay K 2015, Liew S 2016, Signorini M 2016, Schelke LW 2017 and 7 more. They are counted on the landmark papers, not here.

What repeats

Six findings reported by independent groups in different countries. Each card carries the papers it rests on.

Satisfaction is near-universal and short-lived

Eight studies and 674 patients: 100% satisfied immediately, 98.2% in the following weeks, 84.7% at three months and 96.4% of the smaller group still followed at a year, with the effect lasting eight to fourteen months. Across 23 studies and 1,600 patients, nearly 95% were satisfied; across 30 studies and 9,657 patients, 99.08%. Measured properly with FACE-Q in 83 prospective patients, satisfaction and psychological function rose immediately and were only slightly lower at six months as the filler resorbed. Nobody in this literature reports an unhappy cohort.

Rests on: Radulesco et al., 674 patients · Williams et al., 1,600 patients · Song et al., 9,657 patients · Lombardo et al., FACE-Q at six months.

The catastrophic complication is vascular, immediate and mostly permanent

Twenty-two published cases of vision loss after nasal filler: mean age 33.4, 90.9% women, hyaluronic acid in half, and the injection site the nasal dorsum in 57%. Vision loss was immediate in 82% of cases, and only 27% recovered fully, taking an average of 5.3 months, despite hyaluronidase, steroids and antibiotics. In the largest pooled series, arterial occlusion of any kind occurred in 0.27% of 9,657 patients. That is a small number attached to an outcome nobody accepts.

Rests on: Pistone et al., systematic review of vision loss · Song et al. · Caranti et al., complications reviewed.

Everything else that goes wrong is common and minor

Swelling and redness affect roughly half of patients in the largest single-clinician series and 27.95% in the pooled data; the rest of the list is asymmetry, injection-site reactions, hypersensitivity, nodules, granulomas, a bluish tint from filler placed too superficially, and infection. In 5,000 consecutive treatments by one clinician, there were two infections and three cases of localised skin necrosis. In 2,048 pooled post-surgical patients the major complication rate was low but skin necrosis was specifically raised.

Rests on: Harb and Brewster, 5,000 treatments · Song et al. · Santamaría-Gadea et al., filler after rhinoplasty.

Technique is where the risk is managed, and the field has converged on how

Three things recur across every protocol: inject deep and in the midline where the vessels are not, use small boluses, and prefer a blunt cannula through a single entry point to a needle. The published grid, four-point and sequential protocols all encode the same anatomy. In 528 East Asian patients injected by cannula in a fixed sequence, there were no vascular complications at all; in 400 patients treated by a four-point technique the same principle is stated as boluses of 0.05 mL or less in the midline at depth.

Rests on: Radulesco et al., a single-entry cannula procedure · Ye et al., 528 patients, cannula, sequential · Silikovich and Kroumpouzos, the four-point technique · Bertossi et al., the nasal grid · Rohrich et al., five principles and five steps.

Filler in a nose that has already been operated on is a different risk

Every patient in one skin-necrosis series had had a rhinoplasty more than three years earlier, and the systematic review of filler after rhinoplasty (20 articles, 2,048 patients) records an increased risk of skin necrosis alongside high satisfaction. Previous surgery moves and scars the blood supply, so the safe planes are no longer where the anatomy books put them. It is also the commonest reason to inject at all in some practices: bridge collapse or asymmetry (49.0%), an under-projected tip (44.0%) and surface irregularity or scarring (35.4%) across 2,088 post-surgical cases.

Rests on: Robati et al., necrosis after previous rhinoplasty · Santamaría-Gadea et al. · Harb and Abdul-Razzak, 2,088 non-surgical revisions · Valente and Zanella, 1,122 secondary cases.

Filler is not inert, and what it leaves behind becomes a surgical problem

In a rabbit model, hyaluronic acid filler injected against lateral cartilage produced chondrocyte nucleus loss, fibrosis and giant-cell reaction at 90 days without thinning the cartilage. In people, long-standing or migrated filler produces fibrosis, granulomas, skin irregularity and the distorted "Avatar nose" that now has its own surgical algorithm: ultrasound to find residual filler, hyaluronidase to dissolve what will dissolve, then open revision with cartilage. East Asian series describe the same salvage: remove the injected material completely, then rebuild with rib.

Rests on: Gürlek et al., histopathology in a rabbit model · Wong and D'Souza, surgical management of filler complications · Ye et al., revision after non-surgical filler.

By use

What non-surgical rhinoplasty is actually used for, and how well each use is evidenced.

The dorsal hump

The commonest indication, 44% of 5,000 consecutive treatments. Filler does not remove a hump; it fills the dip above and below it so the profile reads straight. It works for a small hump on a straight nose and it makes a large nose larger.

Key papers: Harb and Brewster · Mortada et al., 3,928 patients reviewed.

The tip and the columella

Rotation and projection from small volumes: a four-point diamond injection of a mean 0.12 mL rated excellent in 90.65% of 107 patients at six months; a columella-focused technique in 140 patients; the tip the most commonly injected site across 13 of 23 studies. This is the use with the least tissue to work with and the most reported technique variation.

Key papers: Betti et al., diamond injection technique · Scarano et al., cross-linked hyaluronic acid at the tip · Mortada et al..

The radix and the nasofrontal angle

Filling the root of the nose changes the perceived length and the angle to the forehead. Measured by three-dimensional scanning in 426 patients, a sequential tip-dorsum-glabella protocol moved nasal length 2.62 mm, tip projection 3.69 mm, the nasolabial angle 5.7 degrees and the nasofrontal angle 9.4 degrees.

Key paper: Ye et al..

After a rhinoplasty

The largest use by patient count in the published series: 2,088 and 1,122 post-surgical cases in two practices, treating bridge collapse, an under-projected tip, and irregularity or scarring, at a mean of about 0.5 mL, with complication rates of 2.8% in one and low major-complication rates in the other. It is also the use with the highest necrosis risk.

Key papers: Harb and Abdul-Razzak · Valente and Zanella · Santamaría-Gadea et al..

The deviated nose, and what filler cannot do

A modified four-point technique in 80 patients is the only protocol on file aimed at the appearance of septal deviation, and it is explicitly limited to mild-to-moderate caudal deviation. Filler cannot straighten a septum, cannot open an airway, and cannot make a nose smaller. Where the structure has collapsed, the saddle nose, filler has one documented preoperative role: expanding contracted skin before a surgical reconstruction beneath it.

Key papers: Silikovich and Kroumpouzos, modified technique for septal deviation · Battista et al., filler-assisted skin expansion.

Patients of African descent, and other groups

487 patients of African descent treated for lack of bridge definition (63.9%), excess alar width (61.6%) and a bulbous tip (61.6%), at a median 0.6 mL at the first visit, with no infection, occlusion or necrosis. 528 East Asian patients treated by a cannula protocol with no vascular complications. These are the two largest group-specific series on file, and both report large gains at small volumes.

Key papers: Harb and Abdul-Razzak, 487 patients of African descent · Ye et al..

Who is injecting

In 59 patients treated by 53 injectors of varying experience, satisfaction, volume used and perceived duration did not differ by the injector's experience level: a finding that cuts both ways, since the outcome measured was appearance rather than safety, and the catastrophic complications in this literature are rare enough that a 59-patient study could not detect a difference in them.

Key paper: Germani et al., outcomes across injectors.

The terms, defined

Every term the papers above use to mean something specific, in plain language.

  • Non-surgical rhinoplasty (liquid rhinoplasty, rhinofiller): reshaping the nose with injectable filler rather than surgery. It adds volume; it cannot remove it. [32590640, 36728574]
  • Hyaluronic acid (HA): the filler used in 67% to 97% of cases across the reviews. Reversible with hyaluronidase, which is why it is preferred in the nose. [38862661, 37217605]
  • Calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA): a stiffer, non-reversible filler used in about 1% to 12% of cases depending on the series; the lack of an antidote is the argument against it in the nose. [38862661, 32590640]
  • G prime (G′): how stiff a filler is under stress. High-G′ products hold a shape and are used at the columella and radix; intermediate-G′ products are used where softness matters. [32628267, 39060796]
  • Rheology: the study of how a filler flows and deforms: viscosity, elasticity and cohesivity, the properties that decide where a product belongs. [37783865]
  • Vascular occlusion: filler entering or compressing an artery, causing tissue ischaemia. The mechanism behind necrosis, blindness and stroke. [42660550, 38862661]
  • Hyaluronidase: the enzyme that dissolves hyaluronic acid, kept at hand for emergencies. It did not restore vision in most of the published cases. [42660550, 41412200]
  • Cannula against needle: a blunt cannula through one entry point is less likely to enter a vessel than a sharp needle; the technique papers converge on it. [35511074, 42443422]
  • Nasal grid and four-point protocols: published maps of where to inject, how much, and in what order, so the procedure is reproducible rather than improvised. [30531619, 39060796]
  • Tyndall effect: the bluish look of filler placed too superficially. [39747417]
  • Granuloma and biofilm: a chronic inflammatory nodule and a bacterial community on injected material; both present late. [39747417]
  • "Avatar nose": the widened, distorted appearance of a nose carrying repeated or migrated filler; now a named surgical indication. [41412200]
  • GAIS (Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale): the five-point rating of change against a baseline photograph used in most of these studies. [37267216, 41813985]
  • FACE-Q: the validated appearance and psychological well-being instrument; the most rigorous outcome measure used in this literature. [39747421, 42443422]

The papers this rests on

The 40 papers everything above was written from. Every one links to its abstract, its authors and its DOI.

  1. ASJ
    2026PMID 42660550Summary
  2. APS
    2026PMID 42324394Summary
  3. APS
    2025PMID 39747417Summary
  4. APS
    2025PMID 38977451Summary
  5. FPS
    2025PMID 39532285Summary
  6. FPSAM
    2025PMID 39466798
  7. FPSAM
    2025PMID 39230478Summary
  8. APS
    2024PMID 38862661Summary
  9. APS
    2024PMID 37783865Summary
  10. APS
    2024PMID 37217605Summary
  11. PRS
    2024PMID 38923925
  12. PRS
    2024PMID 37344935Summary
  13. APS
    2021PMID 33660013Summary
  14. FPSAM
    2021PMID 33270498
  15. FPSAM
    2021PMID 33270519Summary
  16. PRS
    2021PMID 34468422
  17. PRS
    2020PMID 32097303Summary
  18. PRS-GO
    2024PMID 39247575Summary
  19. ASJ
    2026PMID 41124352Summary
  20. ASJ
    2018PMID 29506052Summary
  21. PRS
    2020PMID 32590640Summary
  22. PRS
    2019PMID 30531619Summary
  23. ASJ
    2021PMID 32628267Summary
  24. APS
    2025PMID 39060796Summary
  25. PRS-GO
    2025PMID 40416407Summary
  26. FPSAM
    2024PMID 37267216Summary
  27. APS
    2025PMID 38942953Summary
  28. APS
    2026PMID 42443422Summary
  29. PRS
    A Safe Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty Procedure
    Radulesco T, Braccini F, Kestemont P et al.
    2022PMID 35511074Summary
  30. APS
    2026PMID 41813985Summary
  31. APS
    2025PMID 39747421Summary
  32. FPS
    2026PMID 39965763Summary
  33. FPS
    Facial Fillers and Surgical Rhinoplasty: Cross-Sectional Study
    Vansteelant G, D'Souza A, EAFPS Filler Working Group
    2025PMID 39993423Summary
  34. FPS
    2025PMID 41412200Summary
  35. APS
    2025PMID 40456990Summary
  36. PRS
    Five-Principle and Five-Step Liquid Rhinoplasty
    Rohrich RJ, Novak M, Alleyne B et al.
    2023PMID 36728574Summary
  37. PRS
    Soft-tissue fillers in rhinoplasty
    Kurkjian TJ, Ahmad J, Rohrich RJ
    2014PMID 24150121Summary
  38. APS
    2024PMID 38627333Summary
  39. APS
    2025PMID 40389737Summary
  40. APS
    2025PMID 39322839Summary

What is still contested

  • The true rate of severe complications is unknown. Reported occlusion sits at 0.27% and the vision-loss literature is 22 case reports; both come from voluntary reporting, so both are floors rather than estimates. [38862661, 42660550]
  • No randomised trial exists. The reviews say so explicitly: satisfaction data come from case series, and better-designed studies are needed. [37217605, 32590640]
  • Filler characteristics (viscosity, elasticity, cohesivity) are rarely reported, so the studies cannot be compared product by product even when they use the same volumes. [37783865]
  • Duration is quoted as eight to fourteen months from a review of 674 patients; almost nothing on file follows patients past a year, and repeat injection intervals are not standardised. [33660013]
  • What repeated filler does to nasal tissue over years is unknown in humans. The only histology on file is 90 days in rabbits, and it found chondrocyte loss, fibrosis and giant cells. [39965763]
  • Whether facial filler prolongs swelling after later rhinoplasty is a hypothesis with no measurement behind it. [39532285]
  • Injector experience did not change satisfaction in the one study that tested it, which says nothing about whether it changes the rate of the complications that matter. [41813985]

Written by rhinoplasty.cc from the PubMed abstracts, 2026-09-09. Not medical advice.

Related topics

Every paper, by year

88 papers. The 40 above are not repeated.

20266 papers · 6 above
202517 papers · 14 above
  1. APS
    PMID 39690201
  2. APS
    PMID 39849099
  3. FPSAM
    PMID 39570692
202411 papers · 8 above
  1. FPSAM
    PMID 39166301
  2. FPSAM
    PMID 39591585
  3. FPSAM
    PMID 39172533
20232 papers · 1 above
  1. CPS
    Liquid Rhinoplasty
    Saad N, Stallworth CL
    PMID 37169410Summary
202211 papers · 1 above
  1. APS
    PMID 34109452Full text
  2. CPS
    Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty
    Rohrich R, Alleyne B, Novak M et al.
    PMID 34782136Summary
  3. FPS
    PMID 35158387Summary
  4. FPSAM
    PMID 34448622
  5. FPS Clin
    PMID 35501055Summary
  6. FPS Clin
    Liquid Rhinoplasty
    Saad N, Stallworth CL
    PMID 35934437Summary
  7. FPS Clin
    PMID 35501057Summary
  8. FPS Clin
    PMID 35501050Summary
  9. PRS-GO
    PMID 35402124Summary
  10. PRS-GO
    PMID 35999875Summary
202111 papers · 5 above
  1. APS
    PMID 33782723
  2. APS
    PMID 33616714Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 33216177Summary
  4. PRS
    PMID 33027204
  5. PRS
    PMID 33961592
  6. PRS
    PMID 33760777
20207 papers · 2 above
  1. APS
    PMID 32072215
  2. APS
    PMID 31832736Summary
  3. APS
    Psychological Analysis of Non-surgical Rhinoplasty
    Di Rosa L, Cerulli G, De Pasquale A
    PMID 31768580Summary
  4. PRS-GO
    PMID 33425572Summary
  5. PRS-GO
    PMID 32983752Full text
20198 papers · 1 above
  1. APS
    PMID 30560283Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 30535556Summary
  3. FPS
    PMID 31307095Summary
  4. FPS
    PMID 30759462
  5. FPS Clin
    PMID 31280849Summary
  6. PRS
    PMID 31348378
  7. PRS-GO
    Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A Graft-based Technique
    Segreto F, Marangi GF, Cerbone V et al.
    PMID 31624669Summary
20185 papers · 1 above
  1. ASJ
    PMID 29788065
  2. ASJ
    PMID 30265278
  3. FPS
    PMID 29857337Summary
  4. FPS Clin
    PMID 30005788Summary
20172 papers
  1. APS
    PMID 28130558Summary
  2. JAMA FPS
    PMID 28492936
20163 papers
  1. CPS
    PMID 26616716Summary
  2. FPS
    Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty
    Johnson ON 3rd, Kontis TC
    PMID 27680521Summary
  3. PRS-GO
    PMID 27200245Summary
20151 papers
  1. FPS
    PMID 26126227Summary
20141 papers · 1 above
20131 papers
  1. FPS Clin
    PMID 23731585Summary
20122 papers
  1. APS
    PMID 22350307Summary
  2. PRS
    Multiplane hyaluronic acid rhinoplasty
    Xue K, Chiang CA, Liu K et al.
    PMID 22286467