Shaved Cartilage Gel Versus Diced Cartilage on Final Dorsal Camouflage: Prospective Study of 200 Patients.

Diced cartilage (DC) is a reported technique that has been used for dorsal camouflage after reduction rhinoplasty. Nevertheless, there are certain issues regarding its use on nasal dorsum, especially its variable resorption rate and risk of graft distortion or migration, especially in thin-skinned patients. Recently, regenerative medicine protocols have been used to overcome drawbacks of methods based on DC. Thus, cartilage embedded in platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been described as a promising and reliable alternative to existing procedures. To compare long-term aesthetic outcomes of two different techniques for dorsal camouflage: DC shaved cartilage plus platelet-rich fibrin (SC+PRF)-shaved cartilage gel. This is a prospective, interventional, and longitudinal study at an academic tertiary medical center. Participants were 200 consecutive patients undergoing primary reduction rhinoplasty by spare roof technique (SRT) or component dorsal reduction (CDR). The inclusion criteria were primary rhinoplasty, in Caucasian patients with dorsal hump, and camouflage of the dorsum by DC or SC+PRF. Exclusion criteria were ≤18 years of age, revision rhinoplasty and reconstructive rhinoplasty for neoplasic or severe traumatic nasal deformities. The "Utrecht Questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty" was used. Patients answered it before and after surgery (3 and 12 months after). The study population included 200 patients divided into two groups considering the type of dorsal camouflage: DC ( = 132) and shaved cartilage gel ( = 68). The mean age at the time of surgery was 35.44 years (standard deviation ±9.78) and the study population included 130 females (65.0%) and 70 males (35.0%). Regarding aesthetic outcomes, analyses of postoperative means showed a significant improvement, in both groups, over time. However, self-assessment, based on the visual analogue scale (VAS), at 12 months postsurgery, was higher for patients with SC+PRF than with DC ( = 0.004). Twelve months after surgery, patients with thin skin had better aesthetic outcome with SC+PRF than with DC ( = 0.001). For both reduction rhinoplasty techniques, aesthetic outcomes, based on the VAS at 12 months after surgery, were significantly better for patients with SC+PRF (SRT:  = 0.016; CDR:  = 0.004). For both rhinoplasty approaches, either open or closed, aesthetic outcomes, based on the VAS at 12 months after surgery, were significantly better for patients with SC+PRF (closed approach:  = 0.046; open approach:  = 0.017). SC+PRF provides better long-term aesthetic outcomes, not only for thin-skinned patients, but also for patients who had undergone rhinoplasty by a structured or preservation technique, or by an open or closed approach, for dorsal hump reduction.