Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Local and Metastatic Relapses in a Young Woman with Papillary Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix.

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)·2022
Same author

Clinical Features and Long-term Prognosis of Crohn's Disease in Korea: Results from the Prospective CONNECT Study.

Gut and liver·2022
Same author

ARL6IP5 reduces cisplatin-resistance by suppressing DNA repair and promoting apoptosis pathways in ovarian carcinoma.

Cell death & disease·2022
Same author

Mesonephric-like Adenocarcinoma of the Ovary: Clinicopathological and Molecular Characteristics.

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)·2022
Same author

Prognostic value of complete metabolic response on ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Journal of gynecologic oncology·2022
Same author

Disruption of YCP4 enhances freeze-thaw tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Biotechnology letters·2022

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 22, 2026

Surgical Approach to Full Soft Tissue Face Allograft Procurement for Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation
09:14

Surgical Approach to Full Soft Tissue Face Allograft Procurement for Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Published on: December 30, 2025

322

Problems associated with alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty.

Hyun-Soo Kim1, Su-Sung Park2, Myung-Hoon Kim3

  • 1Nose Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Clinic, Busan, Korea.

Yonsei Medical Journal
|October 18, 2014
PubMed
Summary

This study examines complications from using alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty. It reviews 581 revision cases involving silicone, Gore-tex®, and Medpor®. The findings show that each material has different complication rates and types. The authors suggest that surgeons should consider material properties to minimize complications. They emphasize the importance of understanding how implants interact with the body. The study does not introduce new materials but highlights known risks. Surgeons can use these insights to improve patient outcomes.

Keywords:
Rhinoplastyimplantpostoperative complicationsAlloplastic implant complicationsRhinoplasty revision outcomesGore-tex® in nasal surgerySilicone implant complications

Frequently Asked Questions

More Related Videos

Fabrication of a Bioactive, PCL-based "Self-fitting" Shape Memory Polymer Scaffold
09:37

Fabrication of a Bioactive, PCL-based "Self-fitting" Shape Memory Polymer Scaffold

Published on: October 23, 2015

12.3K
Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo
12:19

Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo

Published on: July 1, 2013

10.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 22, 2026

Surgical Approach to Full Soft Tissue Face Allograft Procurement for Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation
09:14

Surgical Approach to Full Soft Tissue Face Allograft Procurement for Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Published on: December 30, 2025

322
Fabrication of a Bioactive, PCL-based "Self-fitting" Shape Memory Polymer Scaffold
09:37

Fabrication of a Bioactive, PCL-based "Self-fitting" Shape Memory Polymer Scaffold

Published on: October 23, 2015

12.3K
Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo
12:19

Multi-Scale Modification of Metallic Implants With Pore Gradients, Polyelectrolytes and Their Indirect Monitoring In vivo

Published on: July 1, 2013

10.2K

Area of Science:

  • Plastic surgery outcomes research within reconstructive surgery
  • Biocompatibility studies in implant materials

Background:

Plastic surgeons frequently use alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty, especially in Asian populations. It was already known that silicone, Gore-tex®, and Medpor® are common choices for nasal augmentation. However, this gap motivated a closer look at the complications arising from these materials. Prior research has shown that revision rates vary depending on the material used. No prior work had resolved the full range of complications across multiple alloplastic types. This paper’s contribution lies in compiling 581 revision cases to highlight material-specific issues. The study does not propose new materials but focuses on existing ones. It aims to inform surgeons about the risks associated with each implant type.

Purpose Of The Study:

This study aimed to analyze complications from alloplastic materials in rhinoplasty and their revision rates. The specific problem is the lack of comprehensive data on material-specific complications. Surgeons need clearer guidance on implant selection to reduce complications. The motivation stems from the high frequency of revision surgeries in this patient group. The authors sought to compile a large dataset to better understand material-related outcomes. They also aimed to provide practical insights for clinical decision-making. The study does not introduce new materials but evaluates current ones. The goal is to improve surgical outcomes by highlighting known risks.

Main Methods:

The researchers reviewed 581 revision cases involving alloplastic implants in rhinoplasty. They categorized the materials used into three types: silicone, Gore-tex®, and Medpor®. Each case was analyzed for the type of complication and revision needed. The study used a retrospective review of clinical records and literature. No new experiments were conducted. The focus was on synthesizing existing data to identify patterns. The authors compared complication rates across the three materials. They also examined the literature to contextualize their findings.

Main Results:

The most common material used was silicone, with 376 cases of complications. Gore-tex® had 183 cases, and Medpor® had 22. Complication types varied by material, including extrusion, infection, and implant migration. The highest revision rate was observed with silicone implants. Gore-tex® showed moderate complications, while Medpor® had the fewest. The study found that material properties influence complication likelihood. Surgeons should consider these differences when selecting implants. The findings suggest a need for material-specific surgical strategies.

Conclusions:

The authors propose that surgeons should consider material properties when selecting alloplastic implants. They emphasize the importance of understanding biocompatibility and wound healing. No new materials were introduced in this study. The findings suggest that silicone has the highest complication rate among the three materials. Gore-tex® and Medpor® have lower but still significant risks. The authors suggest that thorough knowledge of material behavior is essential for minimizing complications. They do not claim that any material is universally superior. Their main implication is that material-specific strategies can reduce revision rates.

The study reports 376 complications with silicone, including extrusion and infection.

Gore-tex® had 183 complications, fewer than silicone but still significant.

The study does not address adoption trends but notes Medpor® had only 22 cases.

The authors suggest wound healing mechanisms are critical for minimizing complications.

The study analyzed 581 revision cases involving alloplastic implants.

The authors propose that material-specific strategies can reduce revision rates.