ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022
Piezoelectric Osteotomy versus Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Piezoelectric Palatine Foraminotomy in Wide Cleft Palate Repair: A New Approach for Safe Neurovascular Pedicle Mobilization.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Comparison of piezoelectric surgery versus conventional methods for benign odontogenic jaw cysts tumours.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- The Effect of Piezoelectric (Piezo) Versus Classic Lateral Osteotomy on the Lacrimal Drainage System (LDS): A Retrospective, Single-Center, Controlled Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Is Piezosurgery Associated with Improved Patient Outcomes Compared to Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous systematic reviews evaluating piezoelectric osteotomy are of critically low quality. We conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes for piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomy. Methods: The study protocol was published a priori (PROSPERO: CRD42021287877). MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched for studies comparing piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomes and reporting at least one outcome of interest (clinical or patient-reported outcomes, PROs). Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane's RoB-2/ROBINS-I tools, respectively. Random effects models were applied. Results: Of 347 articles, 10 studies (nine randomized controlled trials; one prospective cohort study) including 554 patients were included. Piezoelectric osteotomy was associated with significantly reduced edema [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.03 to -0.30; Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides support (albeit weak, due to low-quality evidence) for piezoelectric over conventional osteotomy, for reducing morbidity in the early postoperative period. High-quality level I data reporting PROs will optimize shared decision-making/informed consent.
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.