ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Pre- and Postoperative Visualization in Rhinoplasty: Effects of LED Light Panels in Aesthetic Photography on Image Integrity.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLighting conditions for photographic documentation during pre- and postoperative visits are critical in capturing the outcomes of rhinoplasty for patients. Current standards may not provide direct side lighting, which can enhance visualization of uneven textures. We present a revised studio setup with dual-function background lights positioned perpendicular to the subject-camera axis to provide both back and side lighting.
methodsRhinoplasty pictures were taken in an academic hospital clinic office from six standard angles for pre- and postoperative photography. Two foreground LED continuous lights were placed at 45 degrees relative to the subject-camera axis. An additional two LED continuous lights were angled perpendicularly to the subject-camera axis and positioned at approximately half the distance between the subject and background. Rapid colorimetric image analysis was conducted, and Hex color values were compared to a reference photograph to evaluate colorimetric distortion [4]. Paired images were evaluated by four blinded providers to evaluate nasal structure distortion, image sharpness, image noise, and overall clinical fidelity.
resultsColor accuracy was maintained for the four-light and two-light conditions in the frontal view, with 97% and 94% fidelity compared to the true reference, respectively. In the right oblique view, fidelity for the four-light system was 99% as compared to 100% for the two-light system. Subjective provider ratings established the proposed lighting system as superior in terms of overall clinical fidelity to the standard two-light conditions in nearly all angles (87.5%).
conclusionThis study focuses on moving beyond primarily two foreground lighting which may be limited in terms of side-lighting effects and resultant impact on overall image quality in the goals of optimizing pre- and post-operative documentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
41136704What 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.