Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Reconstruction of Scroll and Pitanguy's Ligaments in Open Rhinoplasty: A Controlled Randomized Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Nasal Tip Projection and Rotational Stability between Structural Rhinoplasty with Strut Graft and Preservation Rhinoplasty with Pitanguy Ligament Graft.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical Implications of Pitanguy Ligament Management for Nasal Tip Contouring in Open versus Closed Rhinoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Assessment of Functional and Aesthetic Results in Preservation and Structural Rhinoplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
introductionIn the preservation rhinoplasty era, ligament management represents a hot topic. The aim of this study is to analyze the role of ligaments as indispensable elements of support of the nasal tip to have an adequate, safe, and predictable aesthetic and functional result. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients meeting the following criteria were included in the study: primary rhinoplasty, minimum 2-year follow-up, proficiency in Italian language, signed consent, and standardized pre- and postoperative photographic documentation. The study was performed with a double-blinded randomized design; both the patients and two of the authors measuring outcomes were blinded to the treatment methods. All patients were asked to answer the FACE-Q satisfaction with the nose postoperative scale. Two plastic surgeons reviewed all postoperative photographs, rating the outcome on a 1-5 VAS scale.
resultsOne hundred and twelve patients were enrolled, 47 males and 65 females, aged between 20 and 50 years. Patients were randomly divided in three groups: group 1, ligament reconstruction and grafts; group 2, only grafts (shield, single and double onlay, umbrella); and group 3, only ligament reconstruction with columellar strut. All rhinoplasties were performed with an open approach. Both the FACE-Q and VAS scores were in groups 1 and 2, which were also the ones undergoing fewer secondary procedures compared to group 3.
conclusionsThe best surgical option appears to be the combination of ligament repair and grafts. It reduces dead space and enables a better redraping of soft tissues, obtaining a better control of tip projection, position, and rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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
38062265What 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.