ArticleJournal of plastic and reconstructive surgery2026
A Simple Hump Measuring Technique in Rhinoplasty: A Prospective Study on Precision and Patient Outcomes.
Article in Journal of plastic and reconstructive 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
Objectives: An aesthetically pleasing nasal side profile is a must for a successful rhinoplasty result. We offer a simple technique for accurate measurement of the desired reduction limit of the nasal hump and thus avoiding over- or under-reduction, plus obtaining a single long piece of cartilage that can be used as a graft in the operation. Methods: A prospective randomized intervention study compared 20 patients: group A (conventional hump reduction) versus group B (tool-assisted reduction). Outcomes were assessed via Likert scales (1-5) at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Results: Group B showed significantly higher median satisfaction scores for hump reduction (p = 0.006 at 6 weeks, p = 0.003 at 6 months) and overall rhinoplasty outcomes (p < 0.001). The tool enabled precise resection while preserving cartilage for grafts. Conclusions: This technique improves reproducibility and patient satisfaction, offering a cost-effective alternative to three-dimensional imaging/artificial intelligence planning.
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.