ArticleHNO2019
[Quality of life after functional aesthetic septorhinoplasty in primary surgery vs. revision surgery-a monocentric study].
Article in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors on Quality of Life Improvement in Septorhinoplasty: Prospective Evaluation Using the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 and Its Minimally Important Difference.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Hardware considerations in infection and nonunion management: When and how to revise the fixation.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubjective assessments of quality of life (QOL) as an important aspect of outcome research have gained in importance over the past few decades. The number of prospective studies on postoperative QOL in septorhinoplasty using disease-specific instruments is sparse. The aim was to assess and compare patient QOL after primary and revision septorhinoplasty performed by a single surgeon in an ENT center. MATERIAL AND
methodsAll patients completed two disease-specific QOL instruments preoperatively and at least 1 year postoperatively: the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) scores. General demographic and clinical information (age, gender, medical and surgical history) were collected from all patients. All operations were performed by a single surgeon (F. R.).
resultsA total of 237 patients were included in the study, 208 (87.8%) female and 29 (12.2%) male. The average age was 30.3 ± 8.9 years. The average observation period was 19.3 ± 7.4 months. Using the measurement tool NOSE there was a significant improvement in obstruction in the overall collective (preoperative 49.8 ± 26.2, postoperative 19.1 ± 21.3; p < 0.001) with no significant difference in primary versus revision surgery. The ROE score showed a significant improvement and both collectives (primary and secondary surgery) showed a significant improvement after the intervention. The patients with a primary intervention had a significantly higher postoperative QOL (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe disease-specific QOL showed a significant increase after primary septorhinoplasty as well as after revision surgery. The NOSE score increased significantly in both intervention groups postoperatively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.