ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Current Predictors of Revision at Time of Primary Rhinoplasty.
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
backgroundBefore primary rhinoplasty, it is crucial to identify patients whose concerns may not be adequately addressed by surgery. In 1999, Gorney and Martello introduced SIMON to describe patients who may be unsatisfied: single, immature, male, overly expectant, and narcissistic. This paper advocates for an evidence-based mnemonic to enhance patient selection.
methodsTriNetX database medical records were queried for patients who underwent primary rhinoplasty at least three years ago at ≥ 15 years old. A Cox proportional hazards model quantified relationships between 115 patient variables, including SIMON-like characteristics, and risk of revision rhinoplasty.
resultsOf 101,562 patients, more female patients underwent revision rhinoplasty than male patients (p = 0.062). Revision risk was 16.8× higher with social exclusion/rejection; 5.36× higher with personality disorders; 3.45× higher with history of subcutaneous filler injections; 2.64× higher with anxiolytic or sedative dependence; 1.38× higher with male sex; and 1.16× higher with anxiolytic use. "Married" relationship status, BMI > 30, older age at surgery, and diagnosed deviated septum were negative associations with revision rhinoplasty.
conclusionIn the current day, additional nuance in social relationships, surgical history, psychiatric diagnosis, and surgical indication may be required to predict revision rhinoplasty. We propose an acronym, BLAKE: Borderline/personality disorders, Lonely/social exclusion, Anxiolytics/sedatives, Kosmetik focus, and previous Enhancement with fillers. BLAKE captures the most salient predictors of revision at the time of primary rhinoplasty, updating the SIMON acronym to be non-gendered and nonreligious. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
41286173What 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.