rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · by topic

Dorsum and hump

227 papers with rhinoplasty in the title matching this topic, 2011 to 2026.

227
Papers
40
Start here
175
Abstracts on file
50
Open access
10
Journals
2011
First year
2026
Latest year
175
Summaries written
APS53ASJ38PRS37FPSAM31FPS28FPS Clin18PRS-GO12Arch FPS6JAMA FPS3CPS1
6201182012320135201411201572016320178201882019132020192021182022292023192024382025322026

What the literature says

Synthesised from the abstracts of the 40 papers listed under Start here. Every line carries the PubMed ID it rests on.

Two-sentence lead. Removing the hump and preserving the dorsum give the same long-term result; preservation shows a small cosmetic edge in the first 6 months and fewer late complications in pooled data, a randomized trial of 84 patients found no difference at 1 year, and blinded raters picked the technique correctly only 52.9% of the time. Piezoelectric (ultrasonic) bone cutting reduces early swelling, bruising, and pain compared with conventional osteotomes without changing osteotomy time; hump recurrence after preservation runs 2.5% to 13.6% depending on how the cartilage is contoured and fixed.

Key points

  • Piezo vs conventional, 19 RCTs (n=905; 476 piezo, 475 conventional), 15 pooled: edema lower at POD2 (SMD -0.92 [-1.70 to -0.13]) and POD7 (SMD -0.64); ecchymosis lower at POD1 (SMD -1.33), POD2 (-1.13), POD7 (-0.62); pain lower at POD2 (SMD -1.23); mucosal integrity loss 0 piezo cases, RR 0.09 [0.02-0.44] [42013314]
  • Osteotomy duration did not differ between piezo and conventional; heterogeneity considerable; GRADE acceptable [42013314]
  • Piezo vs conventional, 8 RCTs (n=440; 191 male, 249 female): short-term edema lower in 75% of papers (persisting in 50%); ecchymosis lower in 87.5% (persisting in 75%); pain and mucosal injury reduced; surgery time and cost cited as disadvantages [36163553]
  • Pooled dorsal preservation outcomes, 22 studies (n=5660): hump recurrence 4.18% (95% CI 2.41-6.40), revision 3.48% (1.77-5.74), postoperative deviation 1.13%, infection 1.89% [35172105]
  • DPR vs hump reduction, 9 studies (n=1364): late complications favored DPR (OR 0.21 [0.13-0.33]); of 128 late events, contour irregularity 53 (41.41%), revision 27 (21.09%), hump recurrence 16 (12.5%), valve collapse 11 (8.59%) [42418006]
  • Early complications, same review: 46 events, tip edema 18 (39.13%), obstruction 10 (21.74%), dorsal irregularity 6 (13.04%); no DPR vs DHR difference (OR 0.66) [42418006]
  • 4 RCTs (n=419): preservation superior on functional (SMD -0.317, I2=0%) and cosmetic (SMD -0.460, I2=67%) PROMs [40227917]
  • 6 studies (n=753): DPR cosmetic advantage held only to 6 months; obstruction scores equal at 1 year [40195129]
  • DPR n=178 vs CHR n=199: CHR patients more often received spreader grafts or autospreaders, anterior septal reconstruction, and clocking sutures; DPR patients more often supratip, radix, and underlay articulated rim grafts; no aesthetic difference at 12 or 24 months [42053436]
  • Functional outcomes, 22 studies (n=2,058): no difference preservation vs structural in controlled studies [42532128]
  • 1,191 DPR primaries: revision 3.4%, 9.9%, then 3.3% across three chronological series (p<0.001) [42467617]
  • SELF algorithm for lateral osteotomy side and level, 521 patients (493 female, 28 male; ages 18-59): 401 double lateral and 85 high lateral osteotomies placed on the side with the longer bony pyramid; no serious complications [35112156]
  • SPLF sandwich graft (perichondrium, laminated rib, rectus fascia) rebuilt the dorsum in over 300 revision cases with 0 warping and 0 infection [40826294]
  • Subdorsal strip methods MSSM (n=35) vs Z flap (n=36): no PROM difference at 12 months; no significant complications [38648529]
  • Randomized trial, 84 patients: hump resection with spreader flaps vs dorsal preservation with modified subdorsal strip showed no difference at 1 year in residual hump (P=.11), width, projection, rotation, VAS (P=.81) or SCHNOS (P=.90) [38366551]
  • Blinded raters, 78 participants: surgical approach identified correctly 52.9% of the time; ROE and SCHNOS obstruction scores comparable between preservation and structural cohorts; Level III [40331571]
  • Crowdsourced ratings, 30 DPR vs 34 structural: both improved (0.300 vs 0.377); raters detected surgery in the structural cohort (r=0.74) but not the DPR cohort (r=-0.0554) [39498873]
  • Dorsal aesthetic line width after DPR (n=30) vs conventional hump resection (n=40), AI-measured: midnose width widened in both (8.835 to 10.120 mm vs 9.383 to 10.100 mm; P=.089 between groups); axis deviation fell in both (P=.008, P=.004) [41369038]
  • Hump recurrence after DPR by upper lateral cartilage contouring, 205 open low-strip cases: 2.5% with electrocautery vs 13.6% with scalpel; ROE 85.0 vs 84.4 [40972537]
  • Low-septal-strip DPR, 231 primaries, mean follow-up 9.68 months: complications 3.5%; a modified strip with septal fixation cut complications (P=0.012) and recurrent hump (P=0.029); Level III [39023572]
  • Five tenets against hump recurrence (Rohrich): patient selection, blocking points, suture fixation of the cartilaginous vault, graduated procedure selection, ancillary dorsal shaping [38722588]
  • High-strip DPR with CT, 43 patients: 55.8% needed intraoperative rasping, 27.9% had a residual hump at 6 months; shorter nasal bones (r=-0.45, P=.002) and smaller kyphion angles (r=-0.30) predicted success [40179243]
  • Superficial dorsal modification without resection or reconstruction, 147 patients, mean follow-up 27 months (12-41): no dorsal revisions, no complications [38992914]
  • Transecting Pitanguy's midline ligament in closed low-septal-resection DPR, 36 patients: supratip depression 0 of 20 transected vs 4 of 16 preserved (P<0.05); no pollybeak in either; ROE equal [35908175]
  • Let-down DPR with MSSM or subdorsal Z-flap, 52 patients aged 15-69: NOSE, SNOT-22 and SCHNOS improved at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months; ESS improved to 3 months only; no difference between septal techniques [36282789]
  • Closed piezo-assisted preservation, 734 primaries: revision 6%, mostly dorsal contour; inserts adapted for the ethmoid plate and lateral and transverse osteotomies [39812015]
  • Eyelid edema and ecchymosis by instrument, 113 patients: upper lid edema exceeded lower at every time point (p<0.001); lower-lid ecchymosis peaked day 1, upper-lid day 3; piezo produced less lower-lid ecchymosis on every day (p<0.001) [40566666]
  • Subperiosteal drains after piezo osteotomies, 110 patients randomized 55/55: ecchymosis lower with drains on day 3 (2.82 vs 4.29, p=0.002) and day 7 (0.76 vs 1.58, p=0.001); edema unchanged; both resolved by day 14 [41452163]
  • Bony vault thickness on CT, 250 primary patients: 35.2% asymmetric vaults; bone thickest at the middle of the lateral osteotomy path, thicker in men at every point, and thicker on the deviated side of asymmetric vaults [36594157]
  • Radix suture (transosseous tunnel, absorbable suture through four skin punctures) after radix reduction, 30 patients vs controls at 12 months: nasofrontal angle change 4.0 vs 6.2 degrees (p=0.02); ROE 94% vs 90% [41834234]
  • Prophylactic autospreader flaps in cosmetic primaries: keystone width fell and held at 1 year; ULC and LLC width swelled at 1 and 6 months and normalized; net widening 1 mm, not significant; NOSE and VAS back to baseline by 1 year [42415377]
  • External strip and internal spreader grafts within DPR, 152 hump patients (52 grafted), 16-26 months: ROE 56.5 to 92.5 (P<0.001), excellent satisfaction in 90% [40327831]
  • DPR in Asian hump noses: 17 patients at median 36.9 months with no residual or recurrent hump, NOSE 61.00 to 15.50; an earlier 9-patient series needed bony step-off camouflage in 3 [39056121, 36988641]
  • Spare roof technique B3 adds a low septal cartilage strip to the surface technique for tension noses with caudal septal deviation; NOVA spare roof with the sail maneuver treats the hump without lateral keystone disarticulation [39087910, 40277124]
  • Digital osteotomies: prior lateral osteotomy lines in revision can be recreated with finger pressure alone, sparing dead space and soft-tissue attachments [36877619]
  • Surveys of 145 and 117 DP surgeons: hump persistence or recurrence is the most cited reason to keep structural techniques; surface techniques rated more stable and predictable [39505713]

Techniques and terms named

piezoelectric osteotomy / piezosurgery [42013314, 36163553], conventional osteotomy [42013314], lateral osteotomy — double lateral, high lateral [35112156], SELF algorithm (septal position, external alar length, lateral pyramidal length, frontal deviation side) [35112156], dorsal hump reduction / conventional hump reduction [42053436], dorsal preservation [35172105], push-down / let-down [42467617], pyramidal classification / W-point septoplasty [42467617], spreader graft / autospreader [42053436], anterior septal reconstruction [42053436], clocking suture [42053436], radix graft / supratip graft / underlay articulated rim graft [42053436], SPF-SPLF graft [40826294], diced cartilage in fascia [40826294], dorsal split preservation / Septal T / keystone area [36787789], MSSM / Z flap [38648529], hybrid dorsal preservation [40327836], dorsal aesthetic lines [40826294], SCHNOS / VAS [42053436], GRADE / ROB-2 [42013314], modified subdorsal strip [38366551], spreader flap [38366551], crowdsourced rating [39498873], AI dorsal aesthetic line measurement [41369038], electrocautery ULC contouring [40972537], modified low septal strip with fixation [39023572], five tenets [38722588], kyphion angle [40179243], superficial dorsal modification [38992914], Pitanguy midline ligament transection [35908175], subdorsal Z-flap [36282789], piezo closed preservation [39812015], eyelid ecchymosis grading [40566666], subperiosteal drain [41452163], bony vault thickness mapping [36594157], radix suture [41834234], prophylactic autospreader flap [42415377], external strip and internal spreader graft [40327831], bony step-off camouflage [36988641], spare roof technique B3 [39087910], NOVA spare roof and sail maneuver [40277124], digital osteotomy [36877619]

Numbers to remember

  • 905 patients across 19 piezo RCTs; mucosal integrity loss RR 0.09 [42013314]
  • 5660 DPR patients: hump recurrence 4.18%, revision 3.48% [35172105]
  • Late-complication OR 0.21 favoring DPR (n=1364) [42418006]
  • 521 patients had osteotomy side chosen by SELF; 401 double lateral, 85 high lateral [35112156]
  • Series 3 revision 3.3% (17 of 519) after a unified DPR framework [42467617]
  • 8 RCTs, n=440: ecchymosis lower with piezo in 87.5% of trials [36163553]
  • RCT n=84: no difference between hump resection and preservation at 1 year [38366551]
  • 52.9% correct identification of the technique by blinded raters, n=78 [40331571]
  • Hump recurrence 2.5% electrocautery vs 13.6% scalpel, n=205 [40972537]
  • 27.9% residual hump at 6 months, 43 high-strip cases [40179243]
  • Supratip depression 0/20 with Pitanguy transection vs 4/16 without [35908175]
  • 0 dorsal revisions in 147 superficial dorsal modifications at 27 months [38992914]

Numbers

Measure Value Population / study PMID
Revision rate, pooled dorsal preservation 3.48% (95% CI 1.77-5.74) 22 studies, 5,660 patients [35172105]
Revision rate, one surgeon over three series 3.4%, 9.9%, 3.3% 1,191 DPR primaries [42467617]
Revision rate, closed piezo preservation 6% 734 primaries [39812015]
Revision rate, superficial dorsal modification 0% dorsal revisions 147 patients, mean 27 months [38992914]
Hump recurrence, pooled 4.18% (95% CI 2.41-6.40) 22 studies, 5,660 patients [35172105]
Hump recurrence by contouring method 2.5% electrocautery vs 13.6% scalpel 205 open low-strip DPR [40972537]
Residual hump at 6 months 27.9% 43 high-strip DPR with CT [40179243]
Complication rate, low-septal-strip DPR 3.5% (8/231) 231 primaries [39023572]
Infection, pooled dorsal preservation 1.89% 22 studies [35172105]
Late complications, DPR vs hump reduction OR 0.21 (0.13-0.33) 9 studies, 1,364 patients [42418006]
Early complications, DPR vs hump reduction OR 0.66, no difference 9 studies [42418006]
Supratip depression, Pitanguy transected vs preserved 0/20 vs 4/16 36 closed DPR cases [35908175]
Mucosal integrity loss, piezo vs osteotome RR 0.09 (0.02-0.44) 19 RCTs, 905 patients [42013314]
Ecchymosis day 3 with vs without drains 2.82 vs 4.29 (p=0.002) 110 piezo cases [41452163]
Functional PROM, preservation vs structural SMD -0.317 4 RCTs, 419 patients [40227917]
RCT, all outcomes at 1 year No difference (SCHNOS P=.90) 84 randomized patients [38366551]
Raters identifying the technique 52.9% correct 78 participants [40331571]
ROE, DPR with strip and spreader grafts 56.5 to 92.5; excellent in 90% 152 patients [40327831]
ROE by ULC contouring method 84.4 vs 85.0 205 patients [40972537]
ROE with radix suture vs control 94% vs 90% 30 patients vs controls [41834234]
NOSE after DPR in Asian noses 61.00 to 15.50 17 patients, 36.9 months [39056121]

What is still contested or missing

  • Piezo operative time: no difference in the pooled RCTs [42013314] vs longer time and higher cost reported as disadvantages [36163553]
  • MCA2 favored hump reduction while late complications favored DPR; authors call significance questionable [42418006]
  • DPR's early cosmetic advantage is "associative rather than causal" and depends on selection and anatomy [42053436]
  • Zholtikov's discussion of SELF [35299264] and the Saman/Saban commentary [38648531] are title-only on file [35299264, 38648531]
  • Four senior surgeons call structural-versus-preservation superiority operator dependent; two surveys name hump recurrence as the reason DP surgeons keep structural methods [39505713]
  • Piezo and power-assisted series lack control groups; the drain and eyelid studies are single-center [39812015, 41452163, 40566666]
  • Superficial dorsal modification reports zero revisions and zero complications without a comparison group [38992914]
  • Bony-vault thickness data come from one Asian cohort of 250 CT scans [36594157]

Papers used

  • Armanfar S et al.. Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rhinoplasty: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Aesthet Surg J 2026. PMID 42013314. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjag082
  • Khatib M et al.. Comparison of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty and Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2026. PMID 42418006. DOI 10.1007/s00266-026-06105-6
  • Robotti E et al.. The Evolution of the SPF-SPLF Graft in Rebuilding the Dorsum in Revision Rhinoplasty-an Update in an Over 300 Case Series. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2026. PMID 40826294. DOI 10.1007/s00266-025-05160-9
  • Chan C et al.. Functional Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Facial Plast Surg 2026. PMID 42532128. DOI 10.1055/a-2927-6789
  • Saman M, Saban Y. Invited Commentary: "Comparison of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Techniques: Functional and Aesthetic Review of Subdorsal Septal Strip Methods" by Barrera. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2026. PMID 38648531. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0101 (title only)
  • Saban Y, Sachanandani NS. Clarification and Classification of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: Lessons from a Continuous 1,191-Case Experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2026. PMID 42467617. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000013339
  • Wei EX et al.. Dorsal Preservation versus Conventional Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Seven-Year Review of Patient Reported Outcomes and Concurrent Operative Techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2026. PMID 42053436. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000013154
  • Kim DH et al.. Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Dorsal Hump Reduction Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2025. PMID 40195129. DOI 10.1007/s00266-025-04828-6
  • Shim SR et al.. Preservation Rhinoplasty Versus Structural Rhinoplasty in Dorsal Hump Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2025. PMID 40227917. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0382
  • Ganesh Kumar N et al.. Refining Patient Selection in Hybrid Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Review of 50 Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 40327836. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012177
  • Barrera JE. Comparison of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Techniques: Functional and Aesthetic Review of Subdorsal Septal Strip Methods. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2024. PMID 38648529. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2023.0191
  • Kisel J et al.. A Comparison Between Piezosurgery and Conventional Osteotomies in Rhinoplasty on Post-Operative Oedema and Ecchymosis: A Systematic Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023. PMID 36163553. DOI 10.1007/s00266-022-03100-5
  • Robotti E et al.. Modified Dorsal Split Preservation Hybrid Rhinoplasty for Cartilaginous Pushdown and Full Letdown Applications: A PROM-Based Review of 100 Consecutive Cases. Facial Plast Surg 2023. PMID 36787789. DOI 10.1055/a-2034-8272
  • Zholtikov V. Invited Discussion on: SELF-A Novel Algorithm for Deciding the Position of Lateral Osteotomies in Rhinoplasty Patients with Minimal External Deviation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022. PMID 35299264. DOI 10.1007/s00266-022-02850-6 (title only)
  • Cabbarzade C. SELF: A Novel Algorithm for Deciding the Position of Lateral Osteotomies in Rhinoplasty Patients with Minimal External Deviation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022. PMID 35112156. DOI 10.1007/s00266-022-02791-0
  • Tham T et al.. Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Meta-Analysis. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022. PMID 35172105. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2021.0312
  • Zarei R et al.. Comparison of Functional and Cosmetic Outcomes Between Dorsal Preservation and Spreader Flap Rhinoplasty: A Randomized Trial. Aesthet Surg J 2024. PMID 38366551. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjae038
  • McCleary S et al.. Dorsal Preservation versus Open Structural Rhinoplasty: Can We Tell the Difference between Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 40331571. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012050
  • Alford JA et al.. Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2025. PMID 39498873. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjae221
  • Xu L et al.. Postoperative Differences in Dorsal Aesthetic Lines in Patients Undergoing Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty and Conventional Hump Resection. Aesthet Surg J 2026. PMID 41369038. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjaf255
  • Şibar S et al.. Scalpel vs Electrocautery for Upper Lateral Cartilage Contouring in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study. Aesthet Surg J 2025. PMID 40972537. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjaf180
  • Çelik V, Tuluy Y. Modification of Low-Septal-Strip Septoplasty to Reduce Hump Recurrence in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 39023572. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011640
  • Cason RW et al.. Preventing Hump Recurrence in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: The 5 Key Tenets. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 38722588. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011528
  • Kemal Ö et al.. Radiological and Anatomical Parameters as Determinants of Success in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2025. PMID 40179243. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjaf050
  • Zholtikov V et al.. Dorsal Modification: Practical Applications in Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2024. PMID 38992914. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjae148
  • Erdal AI, Genç İG. Transection of Pitanguy's Midline Ligament to Avoid Supratip Depression in Closed-Approach, Low-Septal-Resection Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2023. PMID 35908175. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjac211
  • Sozansky Lujan J et al.. Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes of Let Down Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2023. PMID 36282789. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2022.0019
  • Guilarte R, Malzone G. Optimizing Closed-Approach Preservation Rhinoplasty by Ultrasonic Piezo-assisted Techniques for Enhanced Precision. Aesthet Surg J 2025. PMID 39812015. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjaf006
  • Vural O, Koycu A. Comparison of Upper and Lower Eyelid Edema and Ecchymosis Following Rhinoplasty: A Study of Osteotome Versus Piezoelectric Techniques. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2026. PMID 40566666. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2025.0031
  • Uzunoğlu E et al.. The Effect of Subperiosteal Drain Placement on Periorbital Edema and Ecchymosis Following Ultrasonic Piezoelectric-Assisted Rhinoplasty: A Prospective Comparative Study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2026. PMID 41452163. DOI 10.1177/26893614251393192
  • Kim SJ et al.. An Anatomic Analysis of the Bony Vault: From the Perspective of Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2023. PMID 36594157. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjac356
  • Akiner U et al.. The Radix Suture: A Strategy for Prevention of Soft Tissue Fullness After Radix Reduction in Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2026. PMID 41834234. DOI 10.1177/26893614261430612
  • Jabbour N et al.. Dorsal Width and Functional Outcomes with use of Autospreader Flaps in Cosmetic Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2026. PMID 42415377. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjag145
  • Öztürk G. The External Strip and Internal Spreader Graft Combined with Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 40327831. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012187
  • Jin HR, Jeon YJ. Feasibility of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty for Hump Nose Reduction in Asian Population. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2024. PMID 39056121. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0055
  • Jin HR et al.. Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty in Asian Hump Noses. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024. PMID 36988641. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010472
  • Nakamura F et al.. Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty Using a Ferreira-Nakamura Spare Roof Technique B Highlighting the Low Septal Cartilage Strip. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2024. PMID 39087910. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0079
  • Ferreira MG et al.. NOVA Spare Roof Technique and the Sail Maneuver-Vectorial Rhinoplasty Without Lateral Keystone Area Disarticulation. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2025. PMID 40277124. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0349
  • Lisiecki JL et al.. Revision Rhinoplasty Finesse with Digital Osteotomies. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024. PMID 36877619. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010362
  • Santos M et al.. Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: The Perspective of "Preservers" vs. "Structured" Surgeons. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2025. PMID 39505713. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0141

Written by rhinoplasty.cc, 2026-09-08, from the PubMed abstracts; not medical advice.

Start here

The 40 papers the synthesis above was written from.

  1. ASJ
    2026PMID 42013314Summary
  2. APS
    2026PMID 42418006Summary
  3. APS
    2026PMID 40826294Summary
  4. FPS
    2026PMID 42532128Summary
  5. FPSAM
    2026PMID 38648531
  6. PRS
    2026PMID 42467617Summary
  7. PRS
    2026PMID 42053436Summary
  8. APS
    2025PMID 40195129Summary
  9. FPSAM
    2025PMID 40227917Summary
  10. PRS
    2025PMID 40327836Summary
  11. FPSAM
    2024PMID 38648529Summary
  12. APS
    2023PMID 36163553Summary
  13. FPS
    2023PMID 36787789Summary
  14. APS
    2022PMID 35299264
  15. APS
    2022PMID 35112156Summary
  16. FPSAM
    2022PMID 35172105Summary
  17. ASJ
    2024PMID 38366551Summary
  18. PRS
    2025PMID 40331571Summary
  19. ASJ
    2025PMID 39498873Summary
  20. ASJ
    2026PMID 41369038Summary
  21. ASJ
    2025PMID 40972537Summary
  22. PRS
    2025PMID 39023572Summary
  23. PRS
    2025PMID 38722588Summary
  24. ASJ
    2025PMID 40179243Summary
  25. ASJ
    2024PMID 38992914Summary
  26. ASJ
    2023PMID 35908175Summary
  27. FPSAM
    2023PMID 36282789Summary
  28. ASJ
    2025PMID 39812015Summary
  29. FPSAM
    2026PMID 40566666Summary
  30. FPSAM
    2026PMID 41452163Summary
  31. ASJ
    2023PMID 36594157Summary
  32. FPSAM
    2026PMID 41834234Summary
  33. ASJ
    2026PMID 42415377Summary
  34. PRS
    2025PMID 40327831Summary
  35. FPSAM
    2024PMID 39056121Summary
  36. PRS
    2024PMID 36988641Summary
  37. FPSAM
    2024PMID 39087910Summary
  38. FPSAM
    2025PMID 40277124Summary
  39. PRS
    2024PMID 36877619Summary
  40. FPSAM
    2025PMID 39505713Summary

Related topics

115

Preservation rhinoplasty

115 of the 227 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
54

Anatomy and nasal analysis

54 of the 227 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
30

Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology

30 of the 227 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
28

Septum, valve and airway

28 of the 227 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic

Every paper, by year

227 papers. The 40 Start here papers are not repeated.

202632 papers · 12 above
  1. APS
    PMID 41998166Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 40855022Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 42414641
  4. APS
    PMID 41491324Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 40770501Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 42159722Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 40908317Summary
  8. APS
    PMID 42547599Summary
  9. APS
    PMID 41263986Summary
  10. FPS
    PMID 41794044Summary
  11. FPS
    PMID 42476522Summary
  12. FPS
    PMID 41881415Summary
  13. FPS
    PMID 40185154Summary
  14. FPSAM
    PMID 41834787
  15. FPSAM
    PMID 41452185
  16. FPSAM
    PMID 42481923
  17. FPS Clin
    PMID 42091331Summary
  18. PRS
    PMID 42312534
  19. PRS-GO
    PMID 41907079Summary
  20. PRS-GO
    PMID 42422246Summary
202538 papers · 13 above
  1. APS
    PMID 38926251Full text
  2. APS
    PMID 39117869Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 40195130Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 39174803Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 39191923Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 40204933Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 39966153Summary
  8. APS
    PMID 38488907Summary
  9. APS
    PMID 39929983Summary
  10. APS
    PMID 39557639Summary
  11. APS
    PMID 38977457Summary
  12. FPS
    PMID 38547913Summary
  13. FPS
    Step-up Maneuver for Radix Control in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Carlos Neves J, Rijo-Cedeño J, Filgueiras H et al.
    PMID 40854550Summary
  14. FPS
    PMID 38772398Summary
  15. FPSAM
    PMID 39505719
  16. FPSAM
    PMID 40277084
  17. FPSAM
    PMID 39570692
  18. FPS Clin
    Expanding Indications to Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Ferraz MBJ, Sella GCP, Pandini F et al.
    PMID 40253106Summary
  19. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253112Summary
  20. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253104Summary
  21. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253100Summary
  22. PRS
    PMID 40865067
  23. PRS
    PMID 39999233
  24. PRS
    PMID 41148158
  25. PRS-GO
    PMID 41050978Summary
202419 papers · 7 above
  1. ASJ
    PMID 39436834
  2. APS
    PMID 37610518Full text
  3. APS
    PMID 38587673
  4. APS
    PMID 38839611Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 38532200Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 38379010Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 37626136Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 38151040Summary
  9. FPS
    PMID 38471660Summary
  10. FPS Clin
    Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Carlos Neves J, Toriumi DM, Göksel A
    PMID 39341675Summary
  11. PRS-GO
    PMID 39247573Summary
  12. PRS-GO
    PMID 39185377Summary
202329 papers · 5 above
  1. ASJ
    PMID 36752982
  2. ASJ
    PMID 36402140Full text
  3. APS
    PMID 37328654Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 36302983Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 36071240Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 36510020Full text
  7. APS
    PMID 36651982Full text
  8. APS
    PMID 36648530Summary
  9. APS
    PMID 36316459Summary
  10. FPS
    PMID 35577032Summary
  11. FPS
    PMID 36791802Summary
  12. FPS
    PMID 36696918Summary
  13. FPS
    PMID 36972604Summary
  14. FPSAM
    PMID 35506909
  15. FPSAM
    PMID 36282776
  16. FPSAM
    PMID 36637870
  17. FPSAM
    PMID 36637866Summary
  18. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396283Summary
  19. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396289Summary
  20. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396280Summary
  21. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396286Summary
  22. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396285Summary
  23. PRS
    PMID 36827472Summary
  24. PRS
    PMID 36728200Summary
202218 papers · 3 above
  1. ASJ
    PMID 34546291
  2. ASJ
    PMID 34436559Summary
  3. APS
    Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Almazov I, Rovira RV, Farhadov V
    PMID 35169916Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 33987697Summary
  5. CPS
    PMID 34782143Summary
  6. FPSAM
    PMID 35559727
  7. FPSAM
    PMID 35167351
  8. FPSAM
    PMID 33970690Summary
  9. FPSAM
    PMID 35724256Summary
  10. FPSAM
    PMID 34449254Summary
  11. FPS Clin
    PMID 35501050Summary
  12. PRS
    PMID 35259145Summary
  13. PRS
    PMID 35877941Summary
  14. PRS-GO
    PMID 36448013Summary
  15. PRS-GO
    PMID 36148028Summary
202119 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 33141889
  2. ASJ
    PMID 32185397Summary
  3. ASJ
    PMID 32492137Summary
  4. ASJ
    PMID 33674857Summary
  5. FPS
    PMID 33621986Summary
  6. FPS
    PMID 33648013Summary
  7. FPS
    PMID 33634452Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 33621985Summary
  9. FPSAM
    PMID 33861635Summary
  10. FPSAM
    PMID 33635128
  11. FPSAM
    PMID 32380851
  12. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220847Summary
  13. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220839Summary
  14. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220841Summary
  15. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220835Summary
  16. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220846Summary
  17. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220844Summary
  18. PRS
    PMID 34270513Summary
  19. PRS-GO
    PMID 34745799Summary
202013 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 31912863
  2. ASJ
    PMID 30980075Summary
  3. ASJ
    Piezoelectric Ultrasound Rhinoplasty
    Singh P, Dhar S, Singh E et al.
    PMID 31995178
  4. ASJ
    Rhinoplasty: A Sequential Approach to Managing the Bony Vault
    Zholtikov V, Golovatinsky V, Palhazi P et al.
    PMID 31157882Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 32632628Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 32016500Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 32055938
  8. APS
    PMID 32133555Summary
  9. FPS
    PMID 32557440Summary
  10. FPSAM
    PMID 32130066Summary
  11. PRS
    PMID 32195860Summary
  12. PRS
    PMID 32459772Summary
  13. PRS
    PMID 32858658
20198 papers
  1. FPS
    PMID 30759464
  2. FPS
    PMID 31639871Summary
  3. JAMA FPS
    PMID 30789649Summary
  4. JAMA FPS
    PMID 31219525Summary
  5. PRS
    PMID 31461009
  6. PRS
    PMID 31461008
  7. PRS
    PMID 31461007Summary
  8. PRS
    PMID 31764677
20188 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 29608653
  2. ASJ
    PMID 29432541
  3. APS
    PMID 28840282Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 29124378Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 29101440
  6. PRS
    PMID 29369988Summary
  7. PRS
    PMID 29879004Summary
  8. PRS-GO
    PMID 29616168Summary
20173 papers
  1. FPS
    PMID 28388789
  2. PRS
    PMID 28234832Summary
  3. PRS-GO
    PMID 28831344Summary
20167 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 27069244
  2. ASJ
    PMID 26879296Summary
  3. ASJ
    PMID 27069245
  4. ASJ
    PMID 26545389Summary
  5. FPS
    PMID 27494581Summary
  6. PRS-GO
    PMID 27482503Summary
  7. PRS-GO
    PMID 27826459Summary
201511 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 25805279
  2. ASJ
    Rhinoplasty: the nasal bones - anatomy and analysis
    Lazovic GD, Daniel RK, Janosevic LB et al.
    PMID 25805278Summary
  3. ASJ
    PMID 25568232Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 25480746Summary
  5. FPS
    A Rare Late Complication of Rhinoplasty: Dorsal Nasal Cyst
    Aydoğdu İO, Öztürk N, Aksakal İA et al.
    PMID 26579868
  6. FPS
    PMID 26126225Summary
  7. JAMA FPS
    PMID 25978561
  8. PRS
    PMID 25626813Summary
  9. PRS
    PMID 25626814
  10. PRS
    PMID 25747912
  11. PRS
    PMID 25747910
20145 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 24658062Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 24196012Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 24310581Summary
  4. PRS
    PMID 24263393Summary
  5. PRS
    PMID 24374710Summary
20133 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 23855009Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 23860817Summary
  3. PRS
    PMID 24281572Summary
20128 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 22395319Summary
  2. ASJ
    PMID 22328697
  3. ASJ
    PMID 22738757Summary
  4. Arch FPS
    PMID 22869164Summary
  5. Arch FPS
    PMID 22986942Summary
  6. Arch FPS
    PMID 23165907
  7. FPS
    PMID 22723231Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 22872558Summary
20116 papers
  1. APS
    PMID 21487909Summary
  2. Arch FPS
    PMID 21768557Summary
  3. Arch FPS
    PMID 21079106Summary
  4. Arch FPS
    PMID 21931085Summary
  5. PRS
    PMID 21701345Summary
  6. PRS
    PMID 22030516Summary