SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Exploring the Resurgence of the Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional structural reduction: a systematic review of aesthetic, functional, and patient-reported outcomes.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Functional and cosmetic outcome after Septorhinoplasty - A retrospective study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Scalpel vs Electrocautery for Upper Lateral Cartilage Contouring in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Push and Letdown: The Elephant in the Room of Preservation Rhinoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe underlying principles of preservation rhinoplasty (PR) center around maintaining the soft tissue envelope, dorsum, and alar cartilage through surgical manipulations and tip suture techniques. In particular, the let-down (LD) and push-down (PD) techniques have been described, although reports of indications and outcomes in the literature are sparse.
methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms "preservation" OR "let down" OR "push down" AND "rhinoplasty" on PubMed, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases. Patient demographic information, operative details, and surgical outcomes were recorded. Sub-cohorts for patients who underwent LD and PD techniques were analyzed utilizing Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t test for continuous variables.
resultsOverall, there were 5967 PR patients in 30 studies in the final analysis, with 307 patients in the PD cohort and 529 patients in the LD cohort. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire showed a significant increase of patient satisfaction after PR compared to before PR (62.13 vs 91.14; p < 0.001). There was a significantly lower rate of residual dorsal hump or recurrence of 1.3% (n = 4) in the PD when compared to 4.6% (n = 23) in LD cohorts (p = 0.02). The revision rate of PD (0%, n = 0) was also significantly lower than that of LD (5.0%, n = 25) (p < 0.001).
conclusionBased on these published articles, it seems that preservation rhinoplasty is safe and efficacious procedure with improved dorsal aesthetic lines, reduced dorsal contour irregularities, and claimed excellent patient satisfaction. In particular, the PD technique has fewer reported complications and revisions than LD approach, although PD is often indicated in patients with smaller dorsal humps. 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
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.