Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty with Donor Rib Cartilage
- Dr. Chayoung Kang
- 7월 8일
- 7분 분량
This case reviews implant infection revision rhinoplasty in a patient with a long history of repeated silicone implant surgery, recurrent inflammation, bridge-area skin trouble, weakened nasal tissue, columella retraction, short-looking nasal appearance, previous implant removal, ear cartilage grafting, a staged recovery period, stem-cell-assisted tissue treatment, donor rib cartilage reconstruction, alar cartilage repositioning, nasal tip refinement, silicone implant placement for bridge contour, and closed rhinoplasty structural reconstruction.
Author: Dr. Cha-Young Kang
Clinic: NoseLab Clinic
Published: 2026
Last Updated: 2026
Introduction
Hello, this is Dr. Cha-Young Kang of NoseLab Clinic.
This case involves implant infection revision rhinoplasty in a patient who had undergone multiple previous rhinoplasty procedures using silicone implants and ear cartilage.
The patient had experienced repeated inflammation and skin trouble around the nasal bridge over a long period. Because of the previous inflammation history, the nasal tissue was weakened and required a staged treatment approach rather than immediate reconstruction.
The patient wanted to improve recurrent bridge-area inflammation, correct the inward-looking columella, improve the short-looking nasal appearance, and create a more natural-looking nasal line without excessive change.
The revision plan focused on removing inflammation-related material first, allowing enough recovery time, supporting weakened tissue, and later rebuilding the nasal structure with donor rib cartilage according to the patient’s preference.
The reconstruction surgery was performed using a closed rhinoplasty / endonasal approach.
Surgical History Before Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty
The patient had undergone several previous nasal surgeries at other clinics.
About 20 years ago: Silicone implant insertion, but the patient was not satisfied with the shape
About 17 years ago: Revision surgery with silicone implant, but the patient was not satisfied with the shape
About 14 years ago: Silicone implant and ear cartilage surgery, followed by inflammation and repeated acne-like trouble on the nasal bridge
About 10 years ago: Silicone implant removal
About 10 years ago, around 6 months after removal: Re-insertion of silicone implant and ear cartilage
Because inflammation had recurred over a long period, the nasal tissue was weakened and the revision plan required careful staging.
Patient Concerns Before Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty
The patient’s main concerns included:
Repeated acne-like skin trouble and inflammation on the nasal bridge
History of silicone implant-related inflammation
Inward-looking columella
Short-looking nasal appearance
Desire for a natural-looking nasal line without excessive change
Preference for donor rib cartilage reconstruction
Because the patient had a history of repeated implant-related inflammation, the priority was to address tissue condition before reconstructing the nasal framework.
Preoperative Assessment Before Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty
Preoperative design consultation photos were reviewed from the frontal, side, oblique, and nostril views.
Frontal View: Weakened Tissue and Short-Looking Nose
From the frontal view, the nose appeared affected by previous surgeries and long-term tissue changes.
The nasal shape appeared short-looking, and the lower nasal support required evaluation.
Because of the history of repeated inflammation, the skin and soft tissue condition were considered carefully before planning reconstruction.
Side View: Inward-Looking Columella and Bridge Line
From the side profile, the columella appeared retracted or inward-looking.
The bridge line also required reconstruction after previous implant-related problems.
The relationship between the nasal bridge, tip, columella, and upper lip was evaluated to plan a balanced revision.
Oblique View: Tissue Tension and Nasal Contour
From the oblique view, the nasal contour was assessed together with soft tissue tension and previous surgery-related changes.
In revision cases with repeated inflammation, visible shape concerns may be related not only to cartilage support but also to skin thickness, scar tissue, tissue adhesion, and soft tissue quality.
Nostril View: Lower Nasal Support
From the nostril view, lower nasal framework support was evaluated.
Columella position, alar cartilage support, septal support, and nostril balance were considered together.
Because nostril shape can change during healing, the surgical goal was planned within the patient’s tissue limits.
Staged Surgical Plan for Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty
Because the patient had significant previous inflammation related to foreign material, a staged approach was used.
1. Removal of Inflammation-Related Material
Existing foreign material, including the previous implant, was removed.
Inflammation-related tissue was also cleaned and managed during the first stage.
This step was important because immediate reconstruction in an inflamed or weakened tissue environment can increase the risk of further tissue problems.
2. Sufficient Recovery Period
A recovery period of approximately two years was allowed before the next reconstruction stage.
This period was used to allow inflammation to settle and tissue condition to improve before structural rebuilding.
In complex implant infection revision rhinoplasty, the timing of reconstruction should be individualized according to tissue condition, inflammation status, and clinical evaluation.
3. Stem-Cell-Assisted Tissue Treatment
Stem-cell-assisted tissue treatment was used to support the recovery of weakened nasal tissue.
This was included as part of the tissue preparation process before structural reconstruction.
The response to tissue treatment may vary depending on each patient’s tissue quality, inflammation history, scar tissue, and healing response.
4. Donor Rib Cartilage Reconstruction
Donor rib cartilage was used according to the patient’s preference.
The cartilage framework supporting the central nose was reinforced, and the alar cartilage was repositioned.
Cartilage suturing was performed to refine the nasal tip shape and improve lower nasal support.
5. Bridge Line Formation with Silicone Implant
A silicone implant was used to form the nasal bridge line.
Because the patient had a history of implant-related inflammation, material selection and placement required careful evaluation.
The bridge contour was planned to create a natural-looking height while avoiding excessive change.
Surgical Results After Implant Infection Revision Rhinoplasty
Frontal View: Nasal Balance and Short-Looking Appearance
From the frontal view, the short-looking nasal appearance appeared more balanced after structural reconstruction.
The lower nasal support appeared improved after donor rib cartilage reconstruction and alar cartilage adjustment.
The nasal contour appeared more organized without excessive change.
Side View: Columella and Bridge Line
From the side profile, the inward-looking columella appeared improved after lower nasal framework reconstruction.
The bridge line appeared smoother and more balanced after controlled dorsal contour formation.
The overall side profile appeared softer and more stable-looking.
Oblique View: Overall Nasal Contour
From the oblique view, the nasal line appeared more natural-looking and less irregular after staged reconstruction.
The transition from the bridge to the tip appeared more balanced after donor rib cartilage support and bridge line correction.
Nostril View: Lower Nasal Framework
From the nostril view, lower nasal support appeared improved after cartilage repositioning and tip framework correction.
Because the patient had a history of repeated surgery and inflammation, final nostril balance and tissue response should be evaluated over time.
Surgeon’s Commentary on Staged Revision Rhinoplasty
A nose that has been affected by multiple surgeries and repeated inflammation requires a more cautious approach than a standard revision rhinoplasty.
When inflammation is active or tissue is weakened, it may be better to first remove the cause of inflammation and allow time for tissue recovery before proceeding with reconstruction.
In this case, foreign material and inflammation-related tissue were addressed first. A recovery period of approximately two years was then allowed before donor rib cartilage reconstruction.
Stem-cell-assisted tissue treatment was also used to support weakened nasal tissue before reconstruction.
The patient preferred donor rib cartilage, so the central nasal structure was reinforced using donor cartilage. The alar cartilage was repositioned, cartilage suturing was performed, and the tip shape was refined.
Because the patient also wanted a natural-looking bridge line, a silicone implant was used after careful evaluation of tissue condition and previous inflammation history.
This case shows that implant infection revision rhinoplasty may require staged planning, inflammation control, tissue recovery, graft material selection, and cautious structural reconstruction.
All surgical planning should be individualized based on inflammation history, tissue condition, previous implant history, scar tissue, cartilage availability, patient preference, and healing response.
FAQ
What is implant infection revision rhinoplasty?
Implant infection revision rhinoplasty refers to revision surgery performed after inflammation, infection-like reaction, or tissue problems related to a previous nasal implant. Treatment may require implant removal, tissue recovery, and later reconstruction.
Why is a recovery period sometimes needed after implant removal?
A recovery period may be needed when the tissue is inflamed, weakened, scarred, or unstable. Waiting can allow inflammation to settle and tissue condition to improve before reconstruction.
Can donor rib cartilage be used after implant-related inflammation?
Donor rib cartilage may be considered in selected revision cases when structural support is needed and the patient prefers not to use autologous rib cartilage. Material choice should be individualized.
Why was silicone used again after previous implant inflammation?
In this case, silicone was used for bridge contour after a long recovery period and tissue evaluation. Material selection depends on tissue condition, inflammation history, patient preference, and surgical judgment.
Can a short-looking nose and retracted columella be corrected together?
A short-looking nose and retracted columella may be addressed together by rebuilding central support, adjusting the lower nasal framework, and repositioning cartilage. The degree of improvement depends on tissue condition and healing response.
International Consultation
For international patients, a photo-based consultation may help clarify whether implant infection revision rhinoplasty, staged revision rhinoplasty, donor rib cartilage reconstruction, columella retraction correction, short nose correction, bridge reconstruction, or closed rhinoplasty may be needed.
WhatsApp: https://wa.me/821057360302
LINE: [LINE Link]
Medical Disclosure
Surgical before-and-after photos show individual patient cases, and results may vary depending on each patient’s anatomy, previous surgical history, number of revision surgeries, silicone implant history, inflammation history, tissue condition, scar tissue, skin thickness, cartilage availability, donor rib cartilage characteristics, implant condition, bridge structure, columella position, nostril shape, and healing process. Please consult your doctor for an individualized assessment.
After surgery, complications may occur, including infection, bleeding, inflammatory reaction, allergic reaction, asymmetry, limited aesthetic or functional improvement, excessive scarring, skin problems, necrosis, implant-related problems, recurrent inflammation, graft visibility, cartilage warping, implant visibility, implant movement, contour irregularity, delayed healing, or other complications.
댓글