ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Impact of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty on the Internal Nasal Valve.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The internal nasal valve (INV) is the airway's narrowest segment and main regulator of nasal resistance. Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR)-push-down (PD), let-down (LD), and spare roof (SR)-preserves dorsal structures, but its effect on INV angle is unclear. This study systematically evaluated INV angle changes after DPR. Methods: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar (through April 2025) for studies reporting pre- and postoperative INV angles in DPR. Data were synthesized in RevMan 5.4 following PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was a change in the INV angle. Results: Nine studies met inclusion criteria; 4 clinical studies (N = 118) were pooled. Meta-analysis showed a significant postoperative INV angle increase (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-1.02; Conclusions: SR and LD techniques provide modest but meaningful INV angle improvement, supporting DPR as a functional alternative to traditional dorsal hump reduction. PD appears less reliable for valve patency. Larger, long-term studies with standardized functional measures are needed to refine technique selection.
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.