ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2026
Nasal Valve Tensioning versus Crural Strut Grafts in the Management of External Nasal Valve Dysfunction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correlation of Patient-Reported Symptoms With Rhinogram Features Beyond Simple Airway Resistance.The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal nasal valve dysfunction, a common cause of nasal obstruction, is unlikely to be restored with septoplasty or turbinoplasty alone. This study assessed 2 rhinoplasty techniques for the prevention and treatment of external nasal valve dysfunction: lateral crural tensioning with articulated alar rim grafts (LCT/AARG) and lateral crural strut grafts (LCSG) in primary and revision rhinoplasty.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed. Patients received LCT/AARG or LCSG. Assessment occurred at baseline and at least 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome was nasal obstruction sensation, measured by a visual analog scale; the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; and an ordinal nasal obstruction score. Secondary outcomes were nasal airflow (assessed by nasal peak inspiratory flow, nasal airway resistance, and minimum cross-sectional area) and patient-perceived aesthetic results (assessed by the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation and a 13-point ordinal score).
resultsA total of 203 primary rhinoplasty and 108 revision rhinoplasty patients were included. Both techniques had positive effects in primary and revision cases. In primary rhinoplasty, LCT/AARG was more effective than LCSG in improving nasal obstruction (category improvement of 1 or greater in nasal obstruction score, 81% versus 64% [ P < 0.01]), nasal airflow (change in nasal peak inspiratory flow, 21.00 ± 46.43 L/min versus 4.32 ± 42.64 L/min [ P = 0.01] and change in nasal airway resistance on the obstructed side, -0.29 [-0.71 to 0.03] Pa/cm 3 /s versus -0.11 [-0.56 to 0.18] [ P = 0.03]), and Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation score (42 [21 to 54] versus 31 [13 to 46] [ P = 0.02]). Both techniques were similar in revision rhinoplasty.
conclusionLCT/AARG is a reliable technique offering improved airflow, reduced resistance, and better patient-reported outcomes compared with LCSG.
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.