SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparison of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty and Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhinoplasty is one of the most popular facial cosmetic procedures. Compared to dorsal hump reduction (DHR), a dorsal "preservation" rhinoplasty (DPR) approach has been developed to reduce the risk of complications and achieve an appealing dorsum.
methodsAn electronic search for articles comparing DHR to DPR was conducted on major databases. Results were screened through title/abstract and full-text stages. Included articles were extracted for information on demographics, surgical and patients reported outcomes, and for safety information. Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane's RoB 2.0 tool were utilized to assess the risk of bias in included article.
resultsOur search yielded (257) articles, of which nine articles describing a total of 1364 patients were fit for inclusion. The mean age was 30.59 ± 7.27 years, and majority were females (75.22%). Open surgical approach 772 (56.6%) was utilized more than closed approach 592 (43.4%). A mean difference of 0.03 [95% C.I. - 0.06-0.11, p = 0.52] (I
conclusionDHR and DPR are comparable in effect, with each offering a promising outcome. DPR has a safety profile comparably beneficial to DHR, while DHR choice is appropriate in cases with substantial structure reshaping. Nevertheless, further research and clinical trials are necessary to establish the benefits of this alternative surgery. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: 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
42418006What 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.