ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Nasal Alar Subunit Reconstruction: A Review of Data.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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
Objectives: Alar reconstruction is common, yet high-quality outcomes data are limited. This review synthesizes the available literature to guide evidence-informed reconstructive choices. Methods: A systematic review identified 35 eligible studies reporting defect characteristics, techniques, and aesthetic, functional, and graft/flap outcomes. Single-patient case reports, purely technical papers, and studies without outcome data were excluded. Results: Full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG), FTSG with cartilage, and composite grafts have been used with acceptable aesthetic outcomes for small defects. Local flaps are most common for small to intermediate defects, while regional flaps, particularly melolabial (MLF) and paramedian forehead flaps (PMFF), are the primary options for larger defects. PMFFs have higher reported cosmetic satisfaction but may require more secondary procedures. Conclusions: Standard data and evidence reporting for alar subunit reconstruction is very limited, with a predominance of retrospective and technique-driven studies and gestalt-based outcomes. Standardized reporting of defect size, functional outcomes, and validated patient-reported measures is needed. Until higher-quality data is available, reconstructive decisions should be individualized.
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.