Background Classical flaps for perinasal defect reconstruction, such as forehead or nasolabial flaps, have some disadvantages involving limitations of the arc of rotation and two stages of surgery. However, a perforator-based flap is more versatile and allows freedom in flap design. We introduced our experience with reconstruction using a facial artery perforator-based propeller flap on the perinasal area. We describe the surgical differences between different defect subtypes. Methods Between December 2005 and August 2013, 10 patients underwent perinasal reconstruction in which a facial artery perforator-based flap was used. We divided the perinasal defects into types A and B, according to location. The operative results, including flap size, arc of rotation, complications, and characteristics of the perforator were evaluated by retrospective chart review and photographic evaluation. Results Eight patients were male and 2 patients were female. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 35-75 years). The size of the flap ranged from $1cm{ imes}1.5cm$ to $3cm{ imes}6cm$. Eight patients healed uneventfully, but 2 patients presented with mild flap congestion. However, these 2 patients healed by conservative management without any additional surgery. All of the flaps survived completely with aesthetically pleasing results. Conclusions The facial artery perforator-based flap allowed for versatile customized flaps, and the donor site scar was concealed using the natural nasolabial fold.