ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Golden Triangle Method: A Novel Simulation Framework for Rhinoplasty Design.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent rhinoplasty simulation relies on subjective landmark planning and compartmentalized parameter analysis, resulting in inconsistent designs. This study introduces a unified geometric framework to assist in the design of harmonious noses.
objectivesTo develop and provide proof-of-concept validation for a geometric framework that systematically determines optimal nasal landmark positions based on facial proportions, and to evaluate its aesthetic acceptability.
methodsThis prospective study included 30 young Turkish women (aged 18-30 years) seeking primary rhinoplasty, evaluated by 20 board-certified plastic surgeons (17 included in Visual Analog Scales analysis after outlier exclusion) and the patients themselves. The Golden Triangle method employs a 36°-apex isosceles triangle to determine key nasal landmarks within a cohesive geometric framework. Simulations were created using GeoGebra (which also calculated nasal ratios and angles) and Adobe Photoshop. Evaluators rated pre- and post-simulation images using Visual Analog Scales (0-100). Technical parameters were evaluated on 5-point Likert scale by surgeons.
resultsPatient VAS scores increased from 41.3 ± 10.1 to 81.9 ± 3.3 (p < .001; Cohen's d = 5.41), and surgeon ratings improved from 34.7 ± 6.3 to 72.6 ± 4.4 (p < .001; Cohen's d = 7.02). The coefficient of variation decreased by 66.2% for patients' and 53.7% for surgeons' ratings, indicating improved interrater agreement on simulation images. Technical parameters reached "ideal" consensus in 93-97% of cases. Nasal ratios and angles converged toward population-specific reference values with reduced variability.
conclusionsThe Golden Triangle method provides a systematic approach to rhinoplasty simulation, significantly improving aesthetic ratings and interrater agreement using affordable software. 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
42547597What 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.