ArticleJAMA facial plastic surgery2019
Analysis of Cervical Angle in the Submental Muscular Medialization and Suspension Procedure.
Article in JAMA facial plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThe submental muscular medialization and suspension (SMMS) procedure is an option for addressing an obtuse cervical angle in select patients vs the use of traditional rhytidectomy techniques.
objectiveTo compare the change in position of the cervical point between groups undergoing SMMS vs the traditional rhytidectomy technique. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsA retrospective review was performed of 141 patients undergoing rhytidectomy in an accredited private surgery center between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, comparing cervical point depth between patients undergoing SMMS vs those undergoing traditional rhytidectomy with platysma plication. Statistical analysis was performed from November 11, 2017, to January 5, 2018.
interventionsPatients underwent either SMMS or traditional rhytidectomy with platysma plication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was change in the cervical point distance between preoperative and postoperative standardized profile photos.
resultsA total of 141 patients were included in the analysis. A cohort of 46 patients (43 women and 3 men; mean age, 63.5 years [range, 49.0-79.0 years]) underwent neck contouring with the SMMS technique and a cohort of 95 patients (90 women and 5 men; mean age, 61.0 years [range, 48.0-73.0 years]) underwent traditional rhytidectomy with platysmaplasty. The cervical point distance of the SMMS cohort had a mean (SD) postoperative increase of 2.0 (1.05) cm (95% CI, 1.73-2.28; P < .001) compared with 0.78 (0.82) cm in the traditional rhytidectomy cohort (95% CI, 0.54-1.02; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that submental muscular medialization and suspension appears to be an effective option to address the obtuse neck in select patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.