SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Safety of Using Tutoplast-Processed Fascia Lata in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. 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.
- Timing of Single-Tooth Implant Rehabilitation and Periapical Inflammation Severity: A Retrospective Study Using the DAIS System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety profile of using tutoplast-processed fascia lata (TPFL) as a graft material in patients undergoing both primary and revision rhinoplasty.
methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched. Eligible studies were evaluated for bias using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) assessment tool for cohort studies. Our safety outcomes included the incidence of graft resorption, infection, graft displacement, dorsal irregularity, overcorrected dorsal augmentation, and revision rates. Data were pooled as event rate (%) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using STATA software.
resultsNine studies, comprising 827 patients, were included. Eight studies were evaluated with a low risk of bias, and one study had a moderate risk of bias. The pooled proportion analysis demonstrated a low graft resorption rate (event rate = 2.64%, 95% CI [0.69%, 5.62%]), infection rate (event rate = 0.30%, 95% CI [0.02%, 0.83%]), dorsal irregularity rate (event rate = 0.96%, 95% CI [0.09%, 2.51%]), graft displacement rate (event rate = 0.45%, 95% CI [0.07%, 1.12%]), overcorrected dorsal augmentation rate (event rate = 1.29%, 95% CI [0.39%, 2.65%]), and revision rate (event rate = 3.99%, 95% CI [1.82%, 6.90%]).
conclusionThis meta-analysis of 827 patients demonstrated that TPFL has a favorable safety profile in both primary and revision rhinoplasty, with low complication and revision rates. TPFL, whether used alone or in combination with cartilage, is a viable graft option for dorsal augmentation and enhancing nasal dorsum contour. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: 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
39948321What 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.