ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Open Structural Versus Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Comparative Survey Study of Aesthetic Outcomes.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) is increasingly popular, with some suggesting superior outcomes over open structural rhinoplasty (OSR). To date, there has been little investigation into comparative outcomes between the techniques. This study aims to ascertain whether experts in the field can differentiate between the techniques in aesthetic outcomes.
methodsA survey was created that consisted of OSR and DPR cases with an average 2.5 month and 1 year follow-up. The survey was distributed to the Rhinoplasty Society and Dallas Rhinoplasty instructors. Results were correlated to expertise in rhinoplasty. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square or Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between study variables. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
resultsFifty-one plastic surgeons responded (24.2 % response rate). Participants averaged almost 10 years of experience, with an average 58 rhinoplasties performed annually. 59% used open techniques and 39% used both open and closed. 54.5% utilized preservation techniques. The average correct survey score was 58% at 2.5 months and 61% at 1 year. There was no positive correlation between survey score and rhinoplasties performed, experience in years, comfort level or utilization of preservation rhinoplasty techniques.
conclusionsThe study demonstrates no discernable differences in aesthetic results when using OSR and DPR techniques at 1 year after surgery. Ultimately, OSR and DPR techniques should both be considered and potentially combined, when performing rhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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
40770501What 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.