ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Ipsilateral vs. Contralateral Pedicle in Expanded Forehead Flap for Alar Necrosis: Which is Better?
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the outcomes of utilizing an expanded paramedian forehead flap combined with an autologous costal cartilage framework for reconstructing alar necrosis defects caused by hyaluronic acid injection, and to compare the clinical differences between ipsilateral and contralateral pedicle designs.
methodsIn this retrospective study (May 2021-August 2024), 21 patients underwent staged reconstruction: tissue expansion, flap transfer with cartilage framework based on ipsilateral (n=10) or contralateral (n=11) pedicles, followed by pedicle division and revision. Outcomes were assessed using ROE and NOSE scales and blinded photographic evaluation.
resultsAll flaps survived completely. Postoperative ROE increased and NOSE decreased significantly (both P < 0.05). Between-group comparisons demonstrated negligible effect sizes with wide confidence intervals, and post hoc power for the primary outcome (ROE improvement) was only 9%. No statistically significant differences were observed, but the study was underpowered to detect equivalence.
conclusionThe expanded paramedian forehead flap combined with costal cartilage rhinoplasty is an effective strategy for reconstructing this type of iatrogenic alar defect. Our preliminary, underpowered comparison suggests that both pedicle designs can yield satisfactory outcomes; however, these findings do not establish equivalence, and pedicle choice should be individualized based on patient anatomy and biomechanical considerations. 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
42803819What 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.