Surgery vs Electrosurgery for Rhinophyma

Microdebrider-Assisted Rhinophyma Excision

“…Since the first treatment of rhinophyma by Dieffenbach in 1845 (excision and primary closure) and von Langenbeck in 1851 (excision and secondary healing), several methods have been introduced, and the basic axons of development are haemostasis and bloodless surgical field, satisfactory aesthetic outcome, and reduction of surgical time [4]. Cryosurgery was first introduced in 1970 as a treatment option for rhinophyma [20]. Main advantages are minimal bleeding, little pain, and no destruction of the underlying nasal cartilages if used appropriately.…”

Treatment of Severe Rhinophyma Using Scalpel Excision and Wire Loop Tip Electrosurgery

“…These complications are attributed to the greater amount of tissue destruction beyond the operative field. The depth of tissue destruction error beyond the visible surgical field may be up to 1.0 mm with a Bovie cutting current at a power setting of 20–30 W, as judged according to histologic study . This is a major disadvantage over laser surgery, in which tissue destruction appears to be only 0.5 mm deeper than the visible surgical field .…”

Gnatophyma and Otophyma

“…38 Electrocautery generates extreme heat that may damage underlying structures. 39,40 Cryosurgery also has its advocates. [41][42][43] Cryosurgery is limited by depth control, whereas laser modalities are not meant for large-sized lesions.…”