ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Use of a Surgical Microscope for Subperichondrial-Subperiosteal Dissection in Preservation Rhinoplasty: Ergonomic Considerations.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of subperichondrial dissection on nasal vascularity in septorhinoplasty operations.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preservation of anatomical components in rhinoplasty has gained increasing popularity over recent years. Given that elevation of the soft tissue envelope in a continuous subperiochondrial-subperiosteal dissection preserves soft tissues, vessels, nerves, and lymphatics, this procedure may result in faster healing time and less swelling and scarring. However, the technique requires a learning phase and can be challenging to perform because it typically requires meticulous dissection under surgical loupes. The dissection may thus be time-consuming and a burden for surgeons, especially in secondary rhinoplasty cases. Further, the potential risk of musculoskeletal discomfort and injury to the surgeon should not be overlooked; consideration for surgical ergonomics is needed to prevent injuries and enhance surgical performance. To address these issues, we propose the use of a surgical microscope for subperiochondrial-subperiosteal dissection in preservation rhinoplasty. A microscope enables clear visualization of the surgical field and allows surgeons to make precise and delicate manipulation maneuvers. Moreover, it may also enable surgeons to maintain an ideal ergonomic posture and neutral positioning of their joints, thereby reducing physical strain. A surgical microscope may thus be a useful tool for subperiochondrial-subperiosteal dissection by providing clear visualization of the surgical field and improved surgical ergonomics for surgeons.
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.