Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Powered Micro-saw Versus Conventional Osteotome for Septorhinoplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Comparative Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. 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.
- Invited Discussion on "Powered Micro-saw Versus Conventional Osteotome for Septorhinoplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Comparative Study".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious powered instruments are used to perform osteotomy. A consensus on the best method has not been established due to discrepancies in previous studies. This study aimed to compare the conventional osteotome and a powered micro-saw during septorhinoplasty.
methodsThe single-center, prospective cohort study included 60 patients that were grouped into two groups of 30 each. Group 1 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a conventional osteotome, and group 2 underwent open septorhinoplasty using a powered micro-saw. Postoperative edema, ecchymosis, pain, and nasal blockage were compared between groups. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were compared based on FACE-Q, SNOT-22, and T-NOSE scores.
resultsThere were not any differences in age, gender, follow-up duration, the Brinkman index, or level of education between groups. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in group 2 on d 1 and d 3 postsurgery. Nasal blockage scores were significantly higher in group 1 on d 3 and d 7 postsurgery. Edema and ecchymosis scores were similar in both groups at all time points. Preoperative and postoperative (6 months) functional and aesthetic outcomes were also similar in both groups.
conclusionOsteotomy using a powered micro-saw is an effective technique that results in less postoperative pain and nasal blockage than when using conventional osteotome. Early postoperative period edema and ecchymosis scores and long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes are similar when using a powered micro-saw and a conventional osteotome. Osteotomy using a powered micro-saw can be considered an alternative to using a conventional osteotome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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.