ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Decision-making in Nasal Dorsum Reconstruction in Revision Rhinoplasty.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The approach to revision rhinoplasty is a challenge that plastic surgeons often face. The objective of this communication is to describe a surgical algorithm for patients undergoing revision rhinoplasty based on the stability of the nasal dorsum. Methods: The study included 18 patients, six men and 12 women, aged 19-54 years, who had previously undergone rhinoplasty and who visited our clinic to request a new procedure due to unsatisfactory results in those procedures. A surgical algorithm developed by the main author (N.A.) was followed for revision rhinoplasty, and then a validated rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire was applied 1 year after surgery to assess aesthetic outcomes. Results: The questionnaire was applied to all participants, showing a significant increase in patient satisfaction. Before surgery, a minimum value of six and a maximum of 21 (mean of 12) were found. After revision rhinoplasty following the proposed surgical algorithm, a minimum value of 21 and a maximum of 30 (mean of 29) were found, and this difference was statistically significant ( Conclusions: The surgical algorithm used for nasal dorsum reconstruction in patients undergoing revision rhinoplasty improved patient satisfaction and could be a feasible procedure to approach patients who have previously undergone rhinoplasty.
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.