ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
The Process of Single Surgeon Through Structural and Dorsal Preservation in Primary Rhinoplasty: A 594 Case Series with One-Year Follow-Up.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDorsal management is a challenging step in rhinosurgery. In the last decade, an old philosophy of preserving the dorsum has gained popularity alongside the traditional hump resection proposed by Joseph. This study aims to investigate the journey of a rhinosurgeon transitioning from structural to dorsal preservation techniques in primary rhinoplasty.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 594 consecutive patients who underwent primary rhinoplasty by the main surgeon (R.T.) with at least 12 months of follow-up. All surgeries were categorized based on the dorsal approach into Structural Dorsal Rhinoplasty (SDR), Partial Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty (PDPR), and Total Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty (TDPR). The three groups were compared based on the following variables: operative time, long-term complication rate, and re-intervention rate.
resultsThe study included 67 males and 527 females, with an average age of 31.43 years. The average anesthesia operative times were 231.30 minutes for SDR, 241.74 minutes for PDP, and 230.32 minutes for TDP, with no statistically significant differences observed. The complication and revision rates were as follows: SDR had 12.74% complications and 7.32% revisions, PDPR had 13.37% complications and 3.82% revisions, and TDPR had 10.57% complications and 3.25% revisions. Hump recurrence rates were 2.54% in SDR, 7.64% in PDPR, and 6.50% in TDPR. Contour irregularities occurred in 9.55% of SDR, 5.09% of PDPR, and 2.44% of TDPR cases. Both hump recurrence and contour irregularities showed statistically significant differences among the three groups.
conclusionThis study analyzed how the aforementioned variables change during the transition from structural to dorsal preservation techniques, considering the latter as the natural evolution in rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
39557639What 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.