ReviewJPRAS open2026
Nasal retainers in rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction of non-cleft patients: A narrative review.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nasal retainers (also referred to as conformers or stents) are increasingly used after rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction in non-cleft patients, but their indications, outcomes, and safety profile are not well established. We aimed to summarize the available evidence and propose indications for their use. Methods: A narrative review was conducted. A structured search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and SciELO was performed between November 2025 and February 2026, without language or time restrictions, using predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies reporting postoperative use of nasal retainers after aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty or nasal reconstructive surgery were included, excluding those limited to patients with cleft lip and/or palate. Results: Thirteen studies were identified, comprising case reports, small case series, and a single randomized controlled trial involving non-cleft patients undergoing rhinoseptoplasty, correction of nostril stenosis, and reconstruction after trauma, burns, or oncologic resection. Across studies, retainers were typically custom-made or commercial silicone devices used for weeks to months postoperatively. Most reports describe improved nostril symmetry and nasal function, high patient tolerance, and infrequent minor complications. Discussion and conclusions: There is a biological rationale for the use of nasal retainers in modulating healing and scar formation after nasal surgery. Available evidence, though limited in quality, together with this biological rationale and clinical experience, suggests that nasal retainers may represent a useful adjunct in selected aesthetic and reconstructive nasal procedures, particularly in patients at higher risk of contracture or asymmetry. These observations are best understood as hypothesis-generating and expert opinion-based, as current evidence is limited and well-designed comparative studies are needed to more robustly define their effectiveness.
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.