ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Nasal Reconstruction of Post-Mohs Defects >1.5 cm in a Single Cosmetic Subunit Under Local Anesthesia by a Combination of Plastic Surgeon and Mohs Surgeon Team: A Cross-sectional Study and Review of Algorithmic Nasal Defect Closures.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
- Wide Awake Facial Reconstruction: A Literature Review, Cost Analysis, and Practical Guide.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- A Surgical Conundrum: Addressing a Large Nasal Defect Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe present an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of larger post-Mohs defects treated in a practice with both a plastic surgeon and Mohs surgeon. The aim of the study is to present post-Mohs reconstructive choices made by our team compared with closures done by solo dermatologists.
methodsA cross-sectional study was designed. Participants were 66 consecutive cases of nasal Mohs repairs performed under local anesthesia. For each Mohs case, data were collected on the age of the patient, smoking status, tumor type, tumor location, tumor diameter, the number of Mohs stages needed to clear the surgical margins of any remaining cancer, final defect diameter, reconstructive methods used, and postoperative complications.
resultsBasal cell carcinoma was the most common tumor treated on the nose, and post-Mohs basal cell carcinoma defects were closed predominantly with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs), rotation flap (RF), or a combination of both. The sidewall was the cosmetic unit most affected by skin cancer, and defects were commonly closed by FTSG and RF. Fifty percent of the sidewall defects required more than 1 closure method, compared with 24% of the nasal tip defects. FTSG combination closure was performed on 20 cases, usually with an advancement flap.
conclusionsThe addition of a plastic surgeon shifted the nasal reconstructive techniques when compared with dermatologists alone. Post-Mohs defect >1.5 cm in a single cosmetic subunit was reconstructed under local anesthesia with either RF or a combination of FTSG and an advancement flap, whereas dermatologists most commonly chose a primary closure.
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.