ReviewJPRAS open2026
Outcomes and complications of autologous versus alloplastic grafts in augmentation rhinoplasty: A systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2024.
Review in JPRAS 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Augmentation rhinoplasty requires careful selection of graft material to achieve aesthetic and functional success. Autologous cartilage and alloplastic implants remain the most widely used options, each with distinct advantages and risks. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of studies published between 2000 and 2024. Eligible designs included randomized controlled trials, cohort and case-control studies, and large case series (≥10 patients). Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were searched in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and full search strategies are provided in the appendix for reproducibility. No PROSPERO registration was undertaken; however, a predefined protocol was followed to ensure transparency and methodological rigor. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS‑I for observational studies. Results: Twenty‑eight studies met inclusion criteria, representing diverse geographic regions and graft practices. Autologous grafts, especially costal cartilage, were associated with lower infection and extrusion rates, but carried risks of warping and occasional resorption. Alloplastic implants, most commonly silicone and Gore‑Tex, provided operative efficiency but demonstrated higher infection and extrusion rates, particularly in long‑term follow‑up. Meta‑analysis of 10 studies ( Conclusions: Autologous cartilage remains the preferred option for complex, high-risk, or revision rhinoplasty, while alloplastic implants may be appropriate in carefully selected primary cases. Future studies should incorporate standardized patient-reported outcome measures and longer follow-up to improve comparability and clinical relevance.
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.