SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional rhinoplasty techniques: a systematic review of aesthetic and functional outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of preservation rhinoplasty versus conventional rhinoplasty techniques: a systematic review of aesthetic and functional outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preservation rhinoplasty (PR) has emerged as a technique that prioritizes the conservation of native nasal structures to enhance both functional and aesthetic outcomes. This systematic review compares PR with conventional rhinoplasty (CR), evaluating postoperative satisfaction, nasal airflow, and complications. Objective: To systematically compare preservation rhinoplasty and conventional rhinoplasty techniques regarding both aesthetic and functional outcomes, by synthesizing evidence from comparative studies that utilized validated outcome measures, and to evaluate the complication rates, patient selection criteria, and methodological variations influencing results. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed comparative studies evaluating aesthetic and functional outcomes using validated tools, including Health Nasal Outcomes Survey - Obstruction subscale (SCHNOS-O), Visual Analog Scale - Obstruction (VAS-O), and acoustic rhinometry. Data were extracted from studies across multiple regions and surgical approaches, including the subdorsal strip and spare roof techniques (SRT). Results: Across five high-quality studies, PR consistently achieved significant enhancements in both SCHNOS-O and VAS-O scores. In Zarei et al., SCHNOS-O improved from 6.65 ± 6.72 to 3.06 ± 4.04 ( Conclusion: Preservation rhinoplasty may provide comparable safety and functional outcomes to conventional rhinoplasty, with potential aesthetic advantages in carefully selected patients. However, current evidence remains limited by heterogeneity in surgical techniques, outcome measures, and follow-up duration. Further standardized, multicenter, long-term studies are needed to refine patient selection, surgical decision-making, and the broader applicability of preservation techniques. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251090248, PROSPERO: CRD420251090248.
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.