A. To put it simply: the closed approach does have theoretical limitations, but in the hands of an experienced surgeon, it delivers results equivalent to — or better than — the open technique in the vast majority of revision cases.

​

Here's why.

​

1. The "visibility" misconception. The most commonly cited limitation of closed rhinoplasty is restricted surgical field visualization. However, for a surgeon with extensive closed-approach experience, tactile feedback and deep anatomical knowledge fully compensate. The nose is a compact three-dimensional structure; feeling the cartilage framework under the skin can be more informative than seeing it in a bloodied open field.

​

2. The rare exceptions. A small subset of cases — severe bony asymmetry requiring extensive bilateral osteotomies with precise repositioning, or massive structural collapse requiring panoramic access — may theoretically favor an open approach. These represent fewer than 10% of all revision cases.

​

3. Surgeon skill defines the ceiling. The limitation is not the technique — it is the surgeon. The NoseLab inner-open endonasal technique accommodates even the most complex reconstructive cases, including septal reconstruction, alar cartilage rebuilding, nostril lowering, and osteotomies — all without an external incision.

​

---

​

Why the Closed Approach Makes a Difference

​

The core advantage of the closed technique in revision surgery is tissue preservation. Revision patients already have altered internal anatomy from prior operations. Every additional tissue disruption compounds fibrosis, vascular compromise, and sensory loss. The closed approach offers three key protections:

- Vascular preservation: No transcolumellar incision means uninterrupted blood supply to the tip skin

- Sensory preservation: Reduced risk of nasal tip numbness or dysesthesia

- Scar minimization: No external scar, and less internal fibrosis due to reduced tissue handling and near-zero electrocautery use

​

---

​

When to Be Cautious

​

- Extensive septal destruction or cases requiring large-volume costal cartilage reconstruction demand thorough preoperative planning, regardless of approach.

- Severe nasal bone asymmetry may require modified osteotomy strategies.

- The guiding principle is never "fit the patient to the method" but rather "choose the method that best fits the patient."

- When preoperative evaluation suggests the closed approach is suboptimal for a particular case, I communicate this honestly and discuss alternatives.

​

---

​

What I've Observed in Clinical Practice

​

In my clinical experience, the closed approach achieves structurally and aesthetically equivalent outcomes to the open technique in the overwhelming majority of revision cases. Complex procedures including septal reconstruction, alar cartilage rebuilding, alar rim lowering, and osteotomies are all routinely performed endonasally. That said, when preoperative assessment indicates that a particular case is truly better served by an alternative approach, I discuss this openly with the patient.

​

---

​

Surgeon's Note

​

Technique matters less than diagnostic accuracy and surgical experience. As a surgeon who has performed all revision and reconstructive rhinoplasty exclusively through the closed technique, I place great importance on addressing both function and structural integrity in every procedure. When choosing a surgeon, look for one who honestly explains both the advantages and limitations of their approach.

​

---

​

Summary

- The closed technique's limitations are largely overcome by surgeon experience and tactile proficiency

- Fewer than 10% of revision cases may theoretically favor an open approach

- Accurate diagnosis and surgeon expertise matter more than the choice of open vs. closed