ArticleHead & face medicine2019
Biomechanical analyses of common suspension sutures in primary cleft lip rhinoplasty.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finite Element Analysis in Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity: A Narrative Review from Biomechanical Insights to Clinical Translation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of two different secondary rhinoplasties in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- ChatGPT for shaping the future of dentistry: the potential of multi-modal large language model.International journal of oral science · 2023Review
- Shape Optimization of Costal Cartilage Framework Fabrication Based on Finite Element Analysis for Reducing Incidence of Auricular Reconstruction Complications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Computational technology for nasal cartilage-related clinical research and application.International journal of oral science · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor a better understanding of common suspension sutures during primary cleft lip nasal rhinoplasty, the biomechanical consequences of those sutures need to be demonstrated.
methodsA finite element model of the infant specimen was established. The closure of cleft lip and four different specific suspension sutures were simulated by loading different forces on the model: 1. F1 to simulate the suture fastening both medial crura together; 2. F2 to simulate the suture which sewed both medial crura and the non-cleft-side upper lateral cartilage together; 3. F3 to simulate the suture elevating the alar cartilage cranially; 4. F4 to simulate the suture elevating the alar cartilage superiorly. The deformation and stress distribution consequent to each maneuver were analyzed in details.
resultsThe deviation of columella was restored through the closure of cleft lip. Different suspension sutures had different biomechanical effects on the nasal structure. All suspension sutures had the function on elevating the alar cartilage. F2 had no function on restoring the collapse of the nasal tip. The suture which fastened both medial crura together leaded to the lowest stress on the skin envelope.
conclusionsEach suspension suture had its characteristics respectively. The simulation suggested that F1, the suture which fastened both medial crura, could be the most potential maneuver for cleft lip rhinoplasty because it can symmetrically restore the shape of the nose without incurring a significant increase in stress.
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.