SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Dorsal Hump Reduction 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Preserve Nasal Airway Function? A Systematic Review.The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional rhinoplasty techniques: a systematic review of aesthetic and functional outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty on the Internal Nasal Valve.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, improvements in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty have been reported to minimize swelling, reduce scarring, and the aesthetic lines of the nasal dorsum.
methodsSourcing studies from six databases, the change in patient-reported scores for cosmetic satisfaction (-C) (using a visual analogue scale [VAS] and the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey [SCHNOS]) and nasal obstruction severity (-O) (using a VAS, the SCHNOS, and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation [NOSE]) related to the presence of a nasal anatomical deformity were recorded from baseline (before treatment) to post-treatment and compared between an intervention group (dorsal preservation rhinoplasty) and a conventional group (conventional dorsal hump reduction rhinoplasty). The mean difference was chosen to calculate effect sizes of patient-reported outcomes.
resultsData for meta-analysis were retrieved for six studies with a total of 753 patients. The cosmetic satisfaction of patients was significantly greater in the intervention group versus the conventional group (VAS-C: -0.5215 [-0.9616; -0.0814]/SCHNOS-C: 1.9385 [0.1648-3.7123]). There was no significant difference in nasal obstruction scores between the intervention and conventional groups (VAS-O: -0.1997 [-0.5337; 0.1343]/SCHNOS-O: 0.5204 [-1.0096; 2.0504]/NOSE: -3.7884 [-10.2381; 2.6612]). According to the timing of measurement, the intervention group maintained a better improvement in cosmetic satisfaction (VAS-C and SCHNOS-C) until six months postoperation (early), but there was no significant difference thereafter.
conclusionBased on the patient-reported cosmetic or functional benefits, although dorsal preservation led to better cosmetic results in the early follow-up period, the results after six months were similar in the two groups. The two techniques led to similar functional improvements in nasal obstruction at one year of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
40195129What 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.