Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Aesthetic Unit Preservation in Emergency Facial Lacerations: A Prospective Evaluation of Landmark-Based Nerve Blocks.
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacial trauma repair requires precise reconstruction while preserving aesthetic units. Traditional local anesthesia can distort tissue planes and compromise surgical precision.
methodsThis prospective study evaluated landmark-based nerve blocks versus local infiltration for complex facial laceration repair in emergency settings from January 2022 through February 2023. A total of 162 patients were randomized to receive either landmark-based nerve blocks (n = 80) or traditional local anesthesia (n = 82). The nerve block group received targeted injections at anatomical landmarks, while the control group received traditional wound margin infiltration.
resultsThe nerve block group demonstrated significantly reduced anesthetic volume (2.03 ± 0.82 mL vs. 4.94 ± 1.71 mL, p < 0.001), lower pain scores (median 2 vs. 5, p < 0.001), and better preservation of facial topography with reduced tissue distortion (0.6 ± 0.5 vs. 1.8 ± 0.7, p<0.001). Superior maintenance of anatomical landmarks (96.3% vs. 88.4%, p = 0.02), aesthetic subunit symmetry (94.8% vs. 87.2%, p = 0.03), and cosmetic junction line alignment (95.5% vs. 86.9%, p = 0.02) was observed in the nerve block group. Three-month POSAS scores showed better outcomes in the nerve block group for both observer and patient assessments (p < 0.01).
conclusionsWhile some technical challenges exist with zygomaticofacial and zygomaticotemporal blocks, landmark-based nerve blocks represent an effective approach for complex facial laceration repair, offering improved surgical precision and patient comfort. 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
39810002What 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.