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

A Staging System for Revision Rhinoplasty: A Review

Author Affiliations
  • 1University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston
  • 2Facial Plastic Surgery Associates, Houston, Texas

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18(4):305-311. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2016.0249

Importance  Rhinoplasty is known to be one of the more technically challenging cosmetic procedures, with a revision rate of 5% to 15%. Reasons for revisions may range from minor deformities that can be treated in the office to major cosmetic and functional defects that require multiple surgical procedures to correct. The literature lacks a uniform scale that systematically evaluates the patient presenting for revision rhinoplasty. The TNM staging system for classifying malignant tumors was developed to aid the physician in planning treatment, providing some information about prognosis, assisting in evaluating the results of treatment, and facilitating the exchange of information. Although the patient presenting for a revision rhinoplasty does not have a potentially lethal disease, a classification system for such patients resembling that used for malignant tumors may provide similar benefits.

Observations  As in TNM staging, we describe 3 major components that determine the overall difficulty of surgery for revision rhinoplasty. In our PGS system, “P” represents “problem,” consisting of the specific anatomic anomaly with which the patient presents. The second component in our system is “G” for “graft,” based on the number of grafts required. The third component of this system is “S,” for “number of previous surgical procedures.” In addition, we have included a category “E,” for “patient expectations,” which is added after the stage of the patient’s condition has been determined through the PGS classification.

Conclusions and Relevance  Rather than being measured in terms of survival, as with the TNM system for malignant tumors, the prognosis in revision rhinoplasty is measured in terms of what can be achieved with surgery as opposed to what cannot. This preoperative staging system may help the patient understand the complexity of the repair required and help manage expectations. The PGS system will facilitate exchange of information between surgeons who perform revision rhinoplasty. A standardized evaluation system will allow meaningful comparisons of surgical techniques and evaluations of outcomes of rhinoplasty procedures.