[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.147.196.37. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 128
Citations 0
Invited Commentary
Jul/Aug 2016

Classifying Revision Rhinoplasy Complexity—The Impossible Dream?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Larrabee Center for Facial Plastic Surgery, Seattle, Washington
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(4):311-312. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.0310

Rodman and Kridel1 have addressed a truly important problem in facial plastic surgery—the lack of objective ways to evaluate its outcomes. Rhinoplasty is among the most difficult plastic surgical procedure to perform, and it has a relatively high revision rate. I congratulate the authors on their thoughtful and detailed attempt to develop a universally accepted classification for revision rhinoplasty. Such a classification is sorely needed because a revision rate that compares, for example, minor procedures done under local anesthesia with major revisions requiring multiple grafts provides little information to other surgeons or prospective patients. The late Jack Anderson, MD, of Tulane University, renowned for his contributions to facial plastic surgery, called rhinoplasty a “thinking man’s operation,” and the classification developed by Rodman and Kridel is a thinking man’s classification and a well-intentioned approach to an almost impossibly complex classification problem.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×