ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
High vs Low Septal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Quantitative Morphologic Analysis of Hump-Supratip Dynamics.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreservation rhinoplasty is gaining attention for achieving natural dorsal contours. High septal and low septal approaches are two main variants, yet comparative clinical data remain limited.
objectivesTo quantitatively compare high septal and low septal preservation rhinoplasty using a standardized supratip and dorsal hump measurement method and to evaluate their relationship with technique-related biomechanical behavior and dorsal contour changes.
methodsThirty patients who underwent preservation rhinoplasty between 2022 and 2024 were retrospectively reviewed and categorized by technique (high septal vs. low septal). Uniform lateral photographs were analyzed to quantify hump and supratip heights. Four parameters were used to compare supratip and hump reduction between approaches and within each technique, including angular measurements. Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U tests, t tests, descriptive statistics and ANCOVA.
resultsThe first two parameters demonstrated statistically significant differences in supratip descent between techniques, with greater lowering in the high septal group and a relatively higher supratip position in the low septal group. The third parameter showed divergent responses: supratip change diminished with greater hump reduction in the high septal group but increased in the low septal group. The fourth parameter captured supratip-hump behavior in angular form, with higher values in the low septal group and lower values in the high septal group.
conclusionsThis study provides an objective anthropometric comparison of high septal and low septal preservation rhinoplasty techniques and demonstrates differing proportional supratip responses between approaches. These findings may improve understanding of technique-related dorsal contour behavior and assist surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
42809129What 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.