ЖурналыПодпискаАрхивКнигиПроектыО насРекламаДоставка/ОплатаКонтакты
+7 (495) 482-43-29
  • Главная
  • / Журналы
  • / Вернуться в журнал
  • / Содержание номера
  • / Статья
Comparison of ultrasound and traditional osteotomy in closed rhinoplasty

Comparison of ultrasound and traditional osteotomy in closed rhinoplasty

Authors:
Герман Сергеевич Старков,
Наталья Евгеньевна Мантурова,
Артур Владимирович Рыбакин,
Андрей Русланович Андреищев

Журнал: Пластическая хирургия и эстетическая медицина. 2026;(3):68-72.

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202603168

Read: 419 раз

Download PDF (RU)Download PDF (EN)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To improve the results of closed rhinoplasty by comparing traditional manipulations with the back of the nose and ultrasonic technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between August 2024 and August 2025, we analyzed 58 cases of closed rhinoseptoplasty with ultrasound osteotomy in one group and lateral osteotomy with 4-mm osteotome and protection in another group. In all cases, we collected data on gender, age, periorbital edema and hematomas, respiratory parameters, pain, and technical details of surgeries. Survey data were recorded, and photo documentation was performed.

RESULTS. A

Rea of periorbital edema was larger in 1, 2 and 3 days after ultrasound rhinoplasty. There were no significant differences in postoperative hematomas, pain, and difficulties in nasal breathing.

CONCLUSION

Traditional osteotomy has advantage regarding periorbital edema in the first 3 days after surgery compared to ultrasound osteotomy.

Keywords

  • rhinoplasty
  • rhinoseptoplasty
  • ultrasound osteotomy
  • osteotomy
  • ultrasound

Дата поступления: 13.03.2026

Дата принятия в печать: 12.06.2026

Дата публикации: 21.09.2026

References
  1. Pshenisnov KP. Aesthetic rhinoplasty. Rybinsk; 2020:169. (In Russ.).
  2. Boimuradov ShA, Vokhidov UN, Mannapov AB, Rakhimov AA. Choice of approaches to the surgical treatment of nasal defects. Avicenna. 2018;20: 41-44. (In Russ.).
  3. Almazov I, Rovira RV, Farhadov V. Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(3):1342-1350. Epub 2022 Feb 15. PMID: 35169916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02751-0
  4. Zholtikov VV, Golovatinsky VV, Palhazi P, Gerbault O, Daniel RK, Ouerghi R. Rhinoplasty: a sequential approach to the management of nasal bony vault. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2020;(3):25-37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202003125
  5. Goksel A. Piezo-Assisted Let Down Rhinoplasty. In: Çakır B, Saban Y, Daniel R, Palhazi P, eds. Preservation Rhinoplasty. Third edition. Istanbul, Turkey: Septum Publisher; 2020:224-225.
  6. Robiony M, Toro C, Costa F, Sembronio S, Polini F, Politi M. Piezosurgery: a new method for osteotomies in rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2007; 18(5):1098-1100. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0b013e3180de6489
  7. Koçak I, Doğan R, Gökler O. A comparison of piezosurgery with conventional techniques for internal osteotomy. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2017;274:2483-2491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4514-y
  8. Fallahi HR, Keyhan SO, Fattahi T, Mohiti AK. Comparison of Piezosurgery and Conventional Osteotomy Post Rhinoplasty Morbidities: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 May; 77(5):1050-1055. Epub 2019 Jan 15. PMID: 30738059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.004
  9. Koc B, Koc EA, Erbek S. Comparison of clinical outcomes using a Piezosurgery device vs. a conventional osteotome for lateral osteotomy in rhinoplasty. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017 Aug;96(8):318-326. PMID: 28846787. https://doi.org/10.1177/014556131709600819
  10. Shafik AG, Abdelmonem MS, Khaled AM, Azzam TA, Hafez KAEM. Piezosurgery versus Conventional Osteotomies and Rasping in Open Rhinoplasty. Pan Arab J Rhinol. 2023;13:6. https://doi.org/10.58595/2090-7559.121
  11. Aydoğdu I, Bayram AA. Comparison of early and long-term effects of piezosurgery with conventional techniques for osteotomies in rhinoplasty. J Craniofacial Surg. 2020;31:1539-1543. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006337
  12. Hashemi S, Noel CW, Smith OD. Comparing the piezoelectric and conventional osteotome in rhinoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol. 2023;44:103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103759
  13. Demirbilek N, Evren C. Is piezoelectric surgery really harmless to soft tissue? J Craniofacial Surg. 2019;30:1966-1969. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000005598
  14. Ghavimi MA, Nezafati S, Yazdani J, Pourlak T, Amini M, Pourlak T, Ghoreishizadeh A, Negahdari R. Comparison of edema and ecchymosis in rhinoplasty candidates after lateral nasal osteotomy using piezosurgery and external osteotomy. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2018 July-Sept;9(3):73-79. PMID: 30338232; PMCID: PMC6174698. https://doi.org/10.4103/japtr.JAPTR_294_18
  15. Malekpour Ghorbani Z, Shahriar A, Ghassemi A. Postoperative Periorbital Edema and Ecchymosis After External Lateral Osteotomy “Comparing Conventional Osteotome and Piezo Scalpel in Rhinoplasty”. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Mar;75(1):74-79. Epub 2022 Dec 29. PMID: 37007883; PMCID: PMC10050616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-022-03378-6
  16. Taşkın Ü, Batmaz T, Erdil M, Aydın S, Yücebaş K. The comparison of edema and ecchymosis after piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy in rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Feb;274(2):861-865. Epub 2016 Sept 17. PMID: 27640142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4306-9
  17. Tirelli G, Tofanelli M, Bullo F, Bianchi M, Robiony M. External osteotomy in rhinoplasty: Piezosurgery vs osteotome. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36:666-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.05.006
  18. Troedhan A. Piezotome rhinoplasty reduces postsurgical morbidity and enhances patient satisfaction: A multidisciplinary clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74:1659.e1-1659.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.04.013
  19. Starkov GS, Manturova NE, Koen IA. Osteotomy methods in rhinoplasty. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2025;(3-2):93-96. (In Russ., In Engl.). https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202503293
  20. Kara CO, Gökalan I. Effects of single-dose steroid usage on edema, ecchymosis, and intraoperative bleeding in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 104(7):2213-2218. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199912000-00041
slide-cover
slide-cover
slide-cover

Recommended articles:

Evaluation of the efficacy of functional endoscopic instrumental correction of post-traumatic external nasal deformity using a novel instrument (a chisel with integrated suction).Russian Rhinology. 2026;34(3):6-12

Fetal growth restriction syndrome in patients with a GCK gene mutation.Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2026;26(3):60-65

Acoustic analysis of changes in the lens layers after intravitreal dexamethasone implant injection.Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2026;142(3):22-28

Basal variant of Takotsubo syndrome in early postoperative period after elective rhinoplasty.Russian Cardiology Bulletin. 2026;21(2):76-82

Comparative characteristics of morphometric parameters of soft tissue in the cheek region in dissectional and ultrasound studies.Russian Journal of Clinical Dermatology and Venereology. 2026;25(2):226-234

Anatomically oriented approach to osteotomy of the bones of the zygomatico-orbito-maxillary complex.Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2026;10(1):22-34

Technique for minimally invasive instrumental correction of post-traumatic external nasal deformity using a novel tool (suction-integrated chisel).Russian Bulletin of Otorhinolaryngology. 2026;91(1):35-40

Endothelial function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction undergoing multicomponent drug therapy.Russian Cardiology Bulletin. 2025;20(4-2):135-144

Comparative Analysis ofVenous and Paravenous Tissue Damage During Endovascular Laser Ablation with Wavelengths of 1470 and 1940 nm.Journal of Venous Disorders. 2025;19(4):257-266

Anatomy of Saphenopopliteal Junction According to CT Venography and Duplex Ultrasound.Journal of Venous Disorders. 2025;19(3):180-191

Издательство «Медиа Сфера»
РекламаДоставка/ОплатаО насКонтактыОбучение для редакцийПолитика конфиденциальностиПолитика обработки персональных данныхПубличная оферта на реализацию издательской продукции
ЖурналыПодпискаАрхивКнигиПроекты
  • RuStore

© 1998-2026

  • Телефоны издательства:

  • +7 (495) 482-41-18
  • +7 (495) 482-43-29
  • Прямой телефон отдела подписки
    (только по вопросам заказов и доставки журналов)

  • +7 (800) 250-18-12
  • пн-пт с 10:00 до 18:00

  • Telegram
  • VK
info@mediasphera.ru
  • Почтовый адрес:

  • Издательство «Медиа Сфера»,
    а/я 54, Москва, Россия, 127238

  • RuStore

© 1998-2026