ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Computer-Assisted Planning and Navigation of Osteotomies in Rhinoplasty: An Innovative Technique.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-Assisted "Postage-Stamp" Vertebrotomy for Spinal Tumor Resection: Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Computer-Assisted Planning and Navigation of Osteotomies in Rhinoplasty: An Innovative Technique.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Rhinoplasty is among the most commonly performed esthetic surgeries globally, with osteotomies playing a critical role in modifying nasal bone structure. The ideal osteotomy procedure aims for precision and minimal complications. Although navigation systems have advanced in various surgical fields, their use in rhinoplasty is still developing. Our primary objective is to assess the feasibility of computer-assisted planning and navigation for osteotomies in primary rhinoplasty, following the IDEAL Phase 2a framework. Secondary objectives are to assess safety and efficacy. Methods: Conducted in a tertiary center, this retrospective study involved 20 patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty with planning and navigation assistance. Navigation systems were used to plan and perform lateral, medial, and transverse osteotomies using real-time guidance from a tracked piezoelectric instrument. Results: For our first 20 patients, all procedures were completed without reverting to traditional techniques. Throughout the study, performing osteotomies became easier, but the transverse osteotomy remained more challenging than medials and laterals. Between the first and the last patient, the duration of preoperative planning decreased from 38.4 to 20 min. Significant postoperative improvements were observed for FACE-Q, NOSE, and MiRa scale scores. Two cases of blisters related to the subcutaneous use of the piezoelectric instrument were independent of the navigation system. Conclusion: Computer-assisted navigation in nasal osteotomies is feasible, safe, and effective, enhancing surgical precision and patient outcomes. The study's limitations, such as its retrospective nature and small sample size, suggest a need for larger, prospective studies to validate these findings and compare this method with traditional techniques. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
Indexed as
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.