Journal Logo


Nasal Dorsal Augmentation with Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone

Clark, Richard P. M.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: September 2010 - Volume 126 - Issue 3 - p 1113-1116
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181e60665
  • Free


Dr. Gruber has concerns as to the reason for the surprising success of dorsal augmentation with allografts.1 Dr. Gruber's opinion is highly valued and I would like to address each concern.

The “known history” as reported in multiple recent studies in the orthopedic literature is that freeze-dried allograft bone performs very well without the addition of bone morphogenic protein.2,3 Contrary to recent literature, Dr. Gruber suggests that the “known history” of freeze-dried allograft is poor when bone morphogenic protein is not used. Spine surgeons use allograft alone in the cervical spine, where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns against bone morphogenic protein because of the inflammatory reaction and inordinate swelling. There is the distinct possibility of ectopic bone growth and irregularities that would show on the thin nasal dorsum.

The fact that bone morphogenic protein and other growth factors do remain inside freeze-dried allograft has been supported by multiple recent evaluations.4,5 Bone scan evidence of vascularity throughout the allograft after 42 months suggests permanent remodeled bone. Prudence dictates patience, and that is the reason that 5- and 10-year follow-up is planned.

Because there is minimal contact between the allograft and the nasal bones, osteoconduction and fusion are probably limited. We think our success is attributable to osteoinduction, which depends on the allograft stimulation of circulating monocyte stem cells to differentiate into first osteoclasts (partial resorption) and then osteoblasts (bone building). Vascularization is an important criterion for successful remodeling.

Dr. Gruber has applauded the serendipitous finding that the inert “alloimplant” maintained projection in the one case with a totally avascular scar bed. However, he minimizes the fact that the other allografts with a vascular recipient bed have thrived and remodeled. One should always strive for the most vascular recipient bed.

Because our bone scans were performed with fluorine-18 sodium fluoride, which will only concentrate in bone and not scar tissue, I think that our success is primarily through remodeling rather than replacement by scar tissue. In certain cases, it may be attributable to the preservation of an inert alloimplant.

Augmentation of the ethnic nose that has thick skin and a low, flat, wide bridge needs a strong graft to overcome the resistance of thick skin and to create a clean light reflex along the dorsum. Dr. Gruber states that the patient in Figures 1 and 2 “did not need much augmentation” and that his choice would be “at most” temporalis fascia. The preoperative and postoperative photographs speak for themselves. The computed tomographic scan and bone scan in Figure 3 demonstrate a significant 6-mm cortical tibial allograft to her dorsum and also a large allograft to her anterior nasal spine. I believe that Dr. Gruber would find fascia to be a poor cousin to mineralized cortical bone for the above reasons—it simply lacks tensile strength. On a related note, the lack of tensile strength and the failure to maintain shape under pressure is why we did not use demineralized allograft bone.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.:
Original Figure 9 from “Nasal Dorsal Augmentation with Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone” (published in Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1312–1325). (Above) Anteroposterior and (below) lateral views of 12-month results of dorsal and anterior nasal spine augmentation with allograft bone.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.:
Original Figure 9 from “Nasal Dorsal Augmentation with Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone” (published in Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1312–1325). Oblique views of 12-month results of dorsal and anterior nasal spine augmentation with allograft bone.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.:
Original Figure 10 from “Nasal Dorsal Augmentation with Freeze-Dried Allograft Bone” (published in Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1312–1325). (Above) Sagittal computed tomographic scan for anatomical comparison. (Below) Positron emission tomographic bone scan demonstrating uptake of fluoride isotope 18 in the dorsal graft equal to that of skull bone. This demonstrates vascularization of the allograft.


The patient provided written consent for the use of her image.

Richard P. Clark, M.D.

83 Scripps Drive, Suite 130

Sacramento, Calif. 95825


1.Clark RP, Wong G, Johnson LM, et al. Nasal dorsal augmentation with freeze-dried allograft bone. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1312–1325.
2.Hillard VH, Fassett DR, Finn MA, Apfelbaum RI. Use of allograft bone for posterior C1-2 fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:396–401.
3.Ryken TC, Heary RF, Matz PG, et al. Techniques for cervical interbody grafting. Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:203–220.
4.Bormann N, Pruss A, Schmidmaier G, Wildemann B. In vitro testing of the osteoinductive potential of different bony allograft preparations. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. (in press).
5.Pietrzak WS, Woodell-May J, McDonald N. Assay of bone morphogenetic protein-2, -4, and -7 in human demineralized bone matrix. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17:84–90.

Section Description


Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article's publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS' enkwell, at

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

©2010American Society of Plastic Surgeons