Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37069352›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2023

Comparison in Patient Satisfaction Between Structural Component and Hybrid T-bar Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study.

Valérie Verkest, Laura Pingnet, Galathea Van Hout, Erik Fransen, Frank Declau

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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Valérie VerkestDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, GZA-Hospitals, Campus Sint-Vincentius, Sint-Vincentiusstraat 20, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-9499
Laura PingnetFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0215-3548
Galathea Van HoutFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9926-2478
Erik FransenStatUa, Center of Statistics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7785-4790
Frank DeclauDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, GZA-Hospitals, Campus Sint-Vincentius, Sint-Vincentiusstraat 20, Antwerp, Belgium. frank.declau@gza.be.ORCID 0000-0001-6969-1565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, a modified dorsal split preservation technique has been described. In this method, the integrity of the elastic keystone area is preserved by separation of the upper lateral cartilages from the septal T-bar. Our study aimed to evaluate the aesthetical and functional outcome in patients treated with the dorsal T-bar preservation versus the 'gold' standard dorsal split component reduction approach.

methodsWe performed a retrospective propensity score matched analysis in 234 patients enrolled for rhinoplasty. The severity of nasal obstruction was measured with the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation questionnaire (NOSE score). Aesthetic evaluation was performed with the FACE-Q nose and nostrils and Utrecht Questionnaire (UQ). Assessments were conducted prior to surgery, at 3 and at 6 months after surgery. After propensity score matching, 172 patients in two cohorts were retained. The following covariates were taken into the statistical calculation: age, gender, ethnicity, previous nasal surgery, nasal trauma, respiratory allergy, and preoperative NOSE scores. The first cohort of 110 patients underwent rhinoplasty with T-bar preservation technique (TDP). The control cohort consisted of 62 patients who underwent dorsal split component reduction (SCR).

resultsThe mean preoperative scores for FACE-Q nose, FACE-Q nostrils, UQ and VAS score improved significantly in all patients postoperatively. Both techniques had comparable aesthetic outcome measures that remained unchanged between 3 and 6 months postop. Functional outcome as measured by the NOSE score was in favor of SCR at 3 months postop but the difference between both techniques was not significant anymore at 6 months postop. In contrast to SCR, in TDP, only 31% of the patients needed spreader grafts or autospreader flaps at the internal valve area only for functional reasons.

conclusionThe data in this study suggest similar patient satisfaction with SCR and TDP techniques for aesthetics as well as nasal function after 6 months postop. TDP is a very versatile cartilage-sparing method to aesthetically adapt the middle vault without interrupting the keystone area. It combines the popular component separation concept with the preservation of the delicate anatomy of the mid-vault. 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

Nasal ObstructionRhinoplastyCohort StudiesDNA-Binding ProteinsEstheticsHumansNasal SeptumPatient SatisfactionPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDNA-Binding ProteinsDorsal component reduction rhinoplastyFACE-QNOSEPreservation rhinoplastyUtrecht questionnaire

Identifiers

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.