# Assessment of Functional and Aesthetic Results in Preservation and Structural Rhinoplasty

**Authors:** Sandra Krzywdzińska, Dariusz Jurkiewicz, Marcin Jadczak

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/jcm15041429 · 2026-02-12

## TL;DR

This study compares two types of rhinoplasty and finds that preservation rhinoplasty offers higher early satisfaction but both lead to similar long-term results.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of outcomes between preservation and structural rhinoplasty using multiple validated questionnaires.

## Key findings

- Preservation rhinoplasty showed higher ROE scores at three months compared to structural rhinoplasty.
- Both surgical techniques led to significant improvements in quality of life and self-esteem.
- Early postoperative outcomes in obstruction were better with preservation rhinoplasty.

## Abstract

Background: The philosophy of preservation rhinoplasty (PR) is gaining popularity as an alternative to structural rhinoplasty (SR), prompting comparison of their effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and impact on quality of life. Methods: This study evaluated the outcomes of rhinoplasty performed using PR and SR, supported by the SCHNOS, ROE, NOSE, and WHOQOL-BREF questionnaires. Seventy-five patients were included (N = 47 (63%) female and N = 28 (37%) male), of whom 39 underwent SR. Surveys were completed preoperatively and at one and three months postoperatively. A single surgeon performed all procedures, and the results were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Baseline ROE scores were identical in both groups (1.2 vs. 1.2; p > 0.05). At three months, PR demonstrated significantly higher ROE scores (3.8 vs. 3.7; p < 0.05). In the SCHNOS-Obstruction domain, PR showed better outcomes at one month (0.8 vs. 1.3; p < 0.01), whereas three-month scores were equal (0.5 vs. 0.5; p > 0.05). SCHNOS-Cosmesis and NOSE outcomes did not differ significantly at any point. WHOQOL-BREF results indicated significant postoperative improvement across all domains in both groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions: PR provides higher early satisfaction, but both PR and SR yield progressive improvement and comparable longer-term outcomes. Quality of life and self-esteem improved regardless of surgical technique.

## Full-text entities

- **Genes:** CCL21 (C-C motif chemokine ligand 21) [NCBI Gene 6366] {aka 6Ckine, CKb9, ECL, SCYA21, SLC, TCA4}, PGR (progesterone receptor) [NCBI Gene 5241] {aka NR3C3, PR}
- **Diseases:** cleft lip and palate (MESH:D002971), injury to (MESH:D014947), hematoma (MESH:D006406), paranasal sinus disease (MESH:D010254), hump reduction (MESH:D015431), numbness (MESH:D006987), PR (MESH:C537758), swelling (MESH:D004487), infection (MESH:D007239), SSD (MESH:D000784), BDD (MESH:D057215), SCHNOS (MESH:D009668), Septum (MESH:D000093665), mood (MESH:D019964), bruising (MESH:D003288), bleeding (MESH:D006470), depression (MESH:D003866), SR (MESH:D020914), anosmia (MESH:D000857), scar contracture (MESH:D003286), INV abnormalities (MESH:C535918), curvature (MESH:D013121), O (MESH:C535508), NOSE (MESH:D015508)
- **Chemicals:** PR (-), silicone (MESH:D012828)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]
- **Cell lines:** KB — Homo sapiens (Human), Human papillomavirus-related endocervical adenocarcinoma, Cancer cell line (CVCL_0372)

## Figures

9 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12941680/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12941680