Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36316459›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023

Matched Cohort Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Hump Resection Rhinoplasty.

Priyesh N Patel, Cherian K Kandathil, Ahmed S Abdelhamid, Cibele Madsen Buba, Sam P Most

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Priyesh N PatelDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Cherian K KandathilDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
Ahmed S AbdelhamidDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Shaikh, 33511, Egypt.
Cibele Madsen BubaDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA.
Sam P MostDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, 801 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94304, USA. smost@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7385-3149
Stanford University · USKafrelsheikh University · EGStanford Medicine · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural preservation techniques (SPR) minimize disruption of the dorsal aesthetic lines, with potential aesthetic and functional benefits over conventional hump resection techniques (CHR). The goal of this study is to compare patient reported outcomes between these techniques.

methodsThis study was a retrospective matched cohort analysis of patients undergoing rhinoplasty with dorsal hump reduction using patient-reported outcomes measures: Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (obstructive: SCHNOS-O, cosmetic: SCHNOS-C) and visual analog scale (functional: VAS-F, cosmetic: VAS-C). A cohort of patients undergoing SPR were matched to a cohort undergoing CHR based on age, gender, and preoperative SCHNOS scores. Intraoperative techniques and patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups.

resultsThere were no significant differences in the dorsal height between groups. While radix grafting was more common in SPR, dorsal onlay grafting and midvault reconstructive techniques (e.g. autospreader flaps) were more common in CHR. Within both groups, post-operative SCHNOS and VAS improved significantly at short- and long-term follow-up. There were no differences between SCHNOS or VAS scores preoperatively. Post-operative SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C scores were similar between groups at both short-term and long-term follow-up. Post-operative VAS-F scores were not different; however, VAS-C scores at short-term follow-up were statistically greater in the SPR group compared to the CHR group (8.92 vs 8.20, p = 0.03). At long-term follow-up, the difference was not significant.

conclusionWhile there are theoretical functional and aesthetic benefits of SPR techniques, the patient reported benefits may be minimal when compared to CHR techniques with appropriate midvault reconstruction. 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 .

Indexed as

RhinoplastyEstheticsFollow-Up StudiesHumansNasal SeptumNoseRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDorsal preservationHump resectionLet downPreservation rhinoplastyPush down

Identifiers

PMID36316459
OpenAlexW4307844072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.