SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Common Dorsal Flaws Following Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systemic Analysis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open Structural Versus Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Comparative Survey Study of Aesthetic Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has recently been a resurgence of interest in preservation rhinoplasty (PR) for dorsal hump elimination or dorsal projection reduction. However, no studies have scrutinized aesthetic outcomes to identify common pattern of flaws seen in published images to aid those with ardent enthusiasm for this technique to become aware of the frequency of these flaws and find ways to reduce imperfections.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed using search terms ("preservation" OR "let down", "push down") AND "rhinoplasty" on PubMed, Cochrane, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases for studies between January 2000 and December 2022. Patient images from these studies were analyzed by three reviewers (MWW, IAC, and BG) for dorsal flaws. Raw interrater agreement percentage and Krippendorff's alpha were calculated to determine interrater reliability. A descriptive and comparative analysis with Fisher's exact test was performed for the aggregate data.
resultsThere were 59 patient images with 464 views from 24 studies included for final analysis. Optimal dorsal aesthetic lines (DAL) were noted in 12 patients (20.3%), while optimal profile was observed in 15 patients (25.4%) (p = 0.66). Combined ideal front and profile view of dorsum was not observed on any patients. The most common flaws were DAL irregularities (n = 45; 78.0%), dorsal deviation (n = 32, 54.2%), and residual hump (n = 25, 42.4%). There was excellent interrater agreement.
conclusionsWhile PR may have some advantages, it has shortcomings in outcomes, particularly dorsal irregularities, dorsal deviation, and residual humps. Awareness of these imperfections may compel those performing this procedure to modify their techniques and improve their results. 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
37328654What 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.