SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2022
Complications Associated with Spreader Grafts and Spreader Flaps: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. 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, 2 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeSpreader grafts and spreader flaps are one of the most common techniques utilized in rhinoplasty surgeries. The aim of this study was to determine the complications, satisfaction, and revision rates associated with spreader grafts and spreader flaps and to compare these two modalities. MATERIALS AND
methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review. The authors searched the literature systematically for pertinent materials in PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria of this search included: randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohorts, and case series with more than 5 participants on rhinoplasty using spreader grafts or spreader flaps with detailed report either on complications, revision, and satisfaction rates. Furthermore, exclusion criteria included: any cadaveric or non-human study, case reports, technical notes, and review articles.
resultsThe initial literature search yielded a total of 193 studies. Following screening each paper and implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 articles were chosen. In the spreader graft group, from 21 studies reporting complications, 6 of them reported no complication. The most common complications were nasal obstruction, inverted V deformity and open roof deformity, deviation, and infection. In the spreader flap group, from 6 studies reporting any existing complications, 1 reported no complications. Five other studies reported some degree of complications. In terms of revision rate, 10 patients (0.62%) underwent revision surgery after spreader graft placement, while only 2 patients (0.35%) revised surgically in the spreader flap group.
conclusionThese two methods seem to have no significant difference in terms of complication rates, and both are recommended as a choice in middle vault reconstruction when each of their clinical use is indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
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.