ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Open Versus Closed Rhinoplasty Techniques: A Prospective Clinical Study of Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
Introduction Rhinoplasty is a widely used procedure aimed at correcting nasal deformities to improve both function and aesthetics. The open and closed techniques are two main surgical approaches, each with specific indications and advantages. This study aimed to compare clinical, functional, and aesthetic outcomes between open and closed rhinoplasty. Methods A prospective study was conducted in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sher-I-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, from August 2013 to December 2015. A total of 30 patients with primary external nasal deformities were included, of whom 15 underwent open rhinoplasty and 15 underwent closed rhinoplasty. Pre- and postoperative assessments included photographic analysis of aesthetic angles (nasofrontal, nasofacial, and nasolabial) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score. Follow-up ranged from 7 to 12 months (mean: 9.5 months). Results Of the 30 patients, 17 (56.7%) were male and 13 (43.3%) were female. Post-traumatic deformity was the most common etiology (n = 12; 40%), followed by developmental (n = 10; 33.3%) and congenital causes (n = 7; 23.3%). A total of 21 patients (70%) presented with both cosmetic and functional complaints. Higher aesthetic satisfaction was observed in the open group (12 of 15 patients; 80%) compared to the closed group (9 of 15; 60%). Functional improvement, reflected by reduced NOSE scores, was noted in both groups. Postoperative complications were more frequent in the closed group, including persistent deviation (n = 4; 26.7%) and nasal obstruction (n = 3; 20%). Conclusion Both techniques were effective, but open rhinoplasty provided improved aesthetic outcomes and fewer complications, particularly in complex deformities.
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.