ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Revision Rhinoplasty in Retrocolumellar Perforation.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetrocolumellar perforations (RCPs) are rare complications of revision rhinoplasty, often associated with columellar retraction, shortened nasal length, and loss of tip projection. Their repair requires vascularized flaps that provide both mucosal coverage and structural support at the tip.
objectiveTo evaluate the surgical outcomes of RCP repair using endonasal and gingivobuccal flaps, with emphasis on perforation closure, nasal tip projection, and patient-reported outcomes.
methodsA cohort of 28 patients (mean age 35.6 years; 17 men, 11 women) underwent RCP repair. Most had ≥ 2 prior nasal surgeries (71.4%). Risk factors included smoking (64.3%) and cocaine use (35.7%). All patients had nasal skin contraction, short noses, and a retracted columella. Flap techniques were selected according to intraoperative anatomy, and rib cartilage grafts were used in all cases. Outcomes were assessed by perforation status, nasal tip projection, and the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS).
resultsPerforation closure was achieved in 27 of 28 patients (96.4%). Stable and desired nasal tip projection was maintained in 23 patients (82.1%), whereas 4 patients had drooping nasal tips despite RCP closure. SCHNOS scores improved significantly from 18.2 ± 8.5 preoperatively to 89.4 ± 10.7 postoperatively (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 3.68). Among patients reconstructed with gingivobuccal flaps (n = 18), 16/18 (88.9%) maintained stable tip projection, suggesting a favorable trend but not demonstrating superiority.
conclusionRCP repair using structured vascularized flaps achieves high closure rates, reliable nasal tip support, and significant functional and cosmetic improvement. Gingivobuccal flaps are particularly valuable in revision cases with compromised anterior support. 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
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.