Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Dorsal Reduction Rhinoplasty: Analysis of Nasal Patency and Aesthetic Outcomes by Rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales.
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 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty and Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Shaping the Future of Nasal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Preservation Rhinoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Does Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Preserve Nasal Airway Function? A Systematic Review.The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional rhinoplasty techniques: a systematic review of aesthetic and functional outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- State of the Evidence for Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.Facial plastic surgery : FPS · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty on the Internal Nasal Valve.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Low-Strip Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Opens the Internal Nasal Valve in Tension Nose Deformity.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- "Functional Rhinofiller": Improvement of Nasal Airflow with Rhinofiller-A Retrospective Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Assessment of Harms Reporting Quality in Randomized Controlled Trials of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDorsal preservation techniques have been preferred and gained popularity in recent years. The current study compares the effects of dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction rhinoplasty on nasal patency and aesthetic outcomes by using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and rhinomanometry. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction techniques with rhinomanometry.
methodsThis is a prospective study of 34 patients who underwent rhinoplasty between January 2021-June 2022. The patients were randomly selected preoperatively and divided into two groups as structural rhinoplasty (SR) and preservation rhinoplasty (PR). Nasal Obstruction and Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) scales and rhinomanometric evaluation were performed preoperatively, at 3rd month and 12th month postoperatively.
resultsNineteen patients (10 female, 9 male) were in SR group, 15 patients (7 female, 8 male) were in PR group. There was not significant difference in terms of age and gender between groups. In both groups, NOSE, SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C results were found to be significantly lower at postoperative 3rd and 12th month compared to preoperatively (p < 0.001 for the entire SR group, p = 0.001 for the entire PR group). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of PROMs. Mean total nasal volume (TNV) at 12th month were statistically higher than preoperative value in PR group (p = 0.031). Also there was no significant difference in SR group and between groups in terms of rhinomanometry results.
conclusionDorsal preservation with pushdown technique provides good functional and aesthetic results comparable with structural rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 . A well-designed prospective clinical trial.
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.