SynthesisOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional structural reduction: a systematic review of aesthetic, functional, and patient-reported outcomes.
Synthesis in Oral and maxillofacial 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDorsal preservation rhinoplasty aims to maintain the native dorsal roof while achieving aesthetic and functional goals comparable to structural dorsal hump reduction. This systematic review evaluates comparative outcomes, patient-reported measures, and complication patterns across techniques.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from inception to November 1, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized trials, comparative cohorts, and case series with ≥ 10 patients and ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Outcomes included validated PROs, objective airway metrics, aesthetic assessments, and complications.
resultsFrom 487 records identified, 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Across randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies, dorsal preservation demonstrated aesthetic and functional results equivalent to structural dorsal hump reduction at 6-12 months. Patient-reported improvement (ROE, NOSE, SCHNOS) was consistently favorable in both groups. The only comparative objective airway study showed no significant differences in cross-sectional area or nasal volume. Complication and revision rates were low overall, with pooled recurrence and revision typically between 2-4%.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that dorsal preservation rhinoplasty provides outcomes comparable to structural reduction in appropriately selected patients. Standardized reporting and more objective physiologic evaluations are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42067692What 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.