This review aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the outcomes and complications associated with closed versus open rhinoplasty. It focused on key factors like operative times, post-operative complications, and overall patient satisfaction. A comprehensive computerized search of pertinent databases was carried out to find research that satisfied the requirements for inclusion. To locate relevant studies, PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were all searched. The current analysis included seven studies with a total of 375 patients who underwent rhinoplasty; of which 171 were in the open group and 204 in the closed group. Males comprised less than half of the participants, totaling 168 (44.8%). The comparison between open and closed rhinoplasty revealed that the closed approach generally results in less discomfort, less severe eyelid edema, and reduced periorbital ecchymosis as compared to the open approach. Both methods showed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes such as septocolumellar stitch placement, and functional improvement. The endonasal (closed) technique also demonstrated shorter operational times and lower costs. However, open rhinoplasty showed higher patient satisfaction and a lower reoperation rate, particularly for complex nasal tip conditions. Both open and closed rhinoplasty techniques offer valuable benefits depending on the complexity of the case, with the closed approach excelling in quick recovery and reduced scarring, while the open method provides better precision for complex cases. However, due to the variability in the studies reviewed, the findings remain inconclusive. To conclusively identify whether the approach is best, more study is required.
Key words: Rhinoplasty, open technique, closed technique, outcomes, systematic review
|
