rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · by topic

Preservation rhinoplasty

193 papers with rhinoplasty in the title matching this topic, 2018 to 2026.

193
Papers
38
Start here
152
Abstracts on file
42
Open access
9
Journals
2018
First year
2026
Latest year
152
Summaries written
APS44FPS34PRS34FPS Clin26ASJ23FPSAM22PRS-GO8CPS1JAMA FPS1
1201862019122020312021172022332023142024512025282026

What the literature says

Synthesised from the abstracts of the 38 papers listed under Start here. Every line carries the PubMed ID it rests on.

Two-sentence lead. Dorsal preservation lowers the nasal bridge as one piece instead of cutting the hump off; controlled studies show a small cosmetic edge over hump removal in the first six months and equal results after that, with equal breathing outcomes, and raters could not tell the two apart (52.9% correct). Hump recurrence is the complication unique to the method (2.5% to 13.6% depending on cartilage handling; 27.9% residual hump in one CT series), revision runs 1.7% to 9.9%, and the field is now standardizing its terminology and classification after a period of uncontrolled expansion.

Key points

  • Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (n=419): preservation beat structural rhinoplasty on functional (SMD -0.317 [95% CI -0.509 to -0.124], I2=0%) and cosmetic (SMD -0.460 [-0.851 to -0.069], I2=67%) patient-reported outcomes [40227917]
  • Meta-analysis of 6 studies (n=753): DPR cosmetic advantage (VAS-C -0.5215; SCHNOS-C 1.9385) held to 6 months and disappeared after; no difference in obstruction scores (NOSE -3.7884 [-10.2381; 2.6612]) [40195129]
  • Single-center cohort, DPR n=178 vs conventional hump reduction n=199 (2017-2024): adjusted SCHNOS-C better with DPR at 6 months only; no aesthetic difference at 12 or 24 months; functional outcomes equal at every time point [42053436]
  • Functional meta-analysis, 22 studies (n=2,058): controlled studies show no difference between preservation and structural; both improve validated PROMs [42532128]
  • Meta-analysis of 9 studies (n=1364): late complications favored DPR (OR=0.21 [0.13-0.33], p<0.01); early complications no difference (OR=0.66); MCA2 mean difference 0.03 favored hump reduction (p=0.019) [42418006]
  • 1,191 consecutive DPR primaries, one surgeon, 2010-2024: revision 3.4% (Series 1, n=320) rose to 9.9% (Series 2, n=352, expanded indications) and fell to 3.3% (Series 3, n=519, unified framework); χ²(2)=21.61, p<0.001 [42467617]
  • Systematic review, 30 studies (5967 PR patients): ROE 62.13 to 91.14 (p<0.001); push-down hump recurrence 1.3% vs let-down 4.6% (p=0.02); push-down revision 0% vs let-down 5.0% (p<0.001) [37130993]
  • Systematic review, 13 studies (n=855, published 2020-2024): ROE >85 in up to 90.3% of patients; revision 0 to 7.9%; hybrid LUHRS raised RHINO scores 37.6 to 88.2 [42154257]
  • Subdorsal strip variants, MSSM (n=35) vs Z flap (n=36): no difference in NOSE, SNOT-22, SCHNOS, or ESS at 12 months [38648529]
  • PR done with bimaxillary orthognathic surgery, 118 patients (mean age 22): mean 207 min (170-220); 15 complication events (12.7%) [40481156]
  • Hybrid DPR with open structural tip, 50 consecutive patients: authors built a selection algorithm covering bony and cartilaginous components; DPR in unfavorable cases destabilizes framework and function [40327836]
  • Crooked-nose septum classified as C, reverse-C, I, and S deviations with septoplasty Types 1-4; swinging door keeps the quadrangular cartilage that the classical L-strut sacrifices [36826521]
  • Dorsal split preservation along the "Septal T": keystone kept, middle vault reshaped, conventional L-strut septoplasty; 100 consecutive cases improved aesthetically and functionally [36787789]
  • Closed hybrid refinements: Pitanguy ligament preservation, scroll area preservation, dual-plane dissection, rim flap, subdomal grafting, wide subperiosteal dissection [40550487]
  • Randomized trial, 84 patients: dorsal preservation with modified subdorsal strip versus hump resection with spreader flaps showed no difference at 1 year in residual hump (P=.11), width, projection, rotation, VAS (P=.81) or SCHNOS (P=.90) [38366551]
  • Matched cohort, DPR n=30 vs conventional hump resection n=40: dorsal aesthetic line width at midnose widened in both (8.835 to 10.120 mm vs 9.383 to 10.100 mm; P=.089 between groups); SCHNOS-C improved beyond the minimal clinically important difference in every subgroup; Level 3 [41369038]
  • Blinded raters (public, plastic surgeons, rhinoplasty surgeons), 78 participants: surgical approach identified correctly 52.9% of the time; ROE and SCHNOS obstruction scores comparable between DP and non-DP [40331571]
  • Crowdsourced ratings, 30 DPR vs 34 structural: both improved (0.300 vs 0.377); crowdworkers detected surgery in the structural cohort (r=0.74) but not the DPR cohort (r=-0.0554) [39498873]
  • Hump recurrence tenets (Rohrich): patient selection, blocking points, suture fixation of the cartilaginous vault scaled to septal manipulation, graduated procedure selection, ancillary dorsal shaping [38722588]
  • Seven anatomical blocking points that resist dorsal lowering or push the hump back: cartilaginous septum, perpendicular plate of the ethmoid, lateral osteotomy site, Webster triangle, internal maxillary mucoperiosteum, medial canthal ligament, lateral keystone area [37337323]
  • Low-septal-strip DPR, 231 primaries, mean follow-up 9.68 months: complications 8 of 231 (3.5%); the modified strip with septal fixation cut both complications (P=0.012) and recurrent hump (P=0.029) versus the original; Level III [39023572]
  • Upper lateral cartilage contouring in 205 open low-strip DPR cases: hump recurrence 2.5% with electrocautery (n=117) vs 13.6% with scalpel (n=88); ROE 85.0 vs 84.4 (P>.05) [40972537]
  • High-strip DPR with CT, 43 patients: 55.8% needed hump 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, P=.049) predicted success [40179243]
  • Closed piezo-assisted preservation, 734 primaries (2021-2023): revision 6%, mostly dorsal contour; Woodpecker SS18 and SS4 inserts adapted for the ethmoid plate and osteotomies [39812015]
  • Power-assisted DPR (diamond burrs, reciprocating rasps, microsaws), 97 consecutive primaries: complications 8.5%, low revision, no major intraoperative event; RHINO sleep-breathing 3.87 to 4.15 (P=0.01); ecchymosis 5.6 days under age 30, 6.8 days over [41211956]
  • Closed preservation in 417 mestizo primaries (79.3% female, median age 23) with four tip-support technique types: revision 7 (1.7%) at 6 to 12 months [39876773]
  • External strip plus internal spreader grafts inside DPR, 152 hump patients (52 grafted), follow-up 16-26 months: ROE median 56.5 to 92.5 (P<0.001), excellent satisfaction in 90%; W-ASA segment collapse and ULC concavity corrected [40327831]
  • DPR in Asian hump noses, 17 patients, median follow-up 36.9 months: nasofacial angle down 7.76 degrees, rhinion angle down 0.85 (p<0.0001); NOSE 61.00 to 15.50; SCHNOS 10.90 total; no residual or recurrent hump [39056121]
  • Earlier Asian series, 9 patients (push-down 3, let-down 6), all open: no recurrence, no saddle, bony step-off camouflage needed in 3 [36988641]
  • Worldwide survey of 117 DP surgeons: surface techniques preferred for bone by surgeons under 10 years' experience, foundation techniques by 10-30 years; high strip preferred for the septum; surface techniques rated more stable, predictable and faster to learn (p<0.001, p<0.001, p=0.015); revision rates not different; top concern hump persistence or recurrence [38635957]
  • Survey of 145 surgeons (preservers vs structural): DP more common among plastic surgeons than otolaryngologists; 50.8% of preservers use DP in over 90% of primaries; structural preferred by surgeons over 20 years' experience [39505713]
  • ASPS 2025 panel of four senior surgeons (115 practice years): structural versus preservation superiority remains operator dependent; framework proposed for selective preservation principles that keep rhinoplasty teachable [41025796]
  • Decade review (Kosins): preservation now an accepted philosophy with textbooks, courses and a known complication and pitfall list; Level 5 [42455864]
  • J-suture: absorbable percutaneous suture approximating the upper lateral cartilages to narrow a widened middle third after preservation; open or closed [39026386]
  • NOVA spare roof technique with the sail maneuver treats the hump without lateral keystone disarticulation, built on a dorsal vectorial concept [40277124]
  • Pitanguy ligament in fresh cadavers: it tethers the tip downward; release and reconstruction may be needed to reposition the tip and avoid supratip deformity [39026387]
  • Preservation principles in 6 cleft infants (3 unilateral, 3 bilateral): Pitanguy ligament release and repositioning eased tip tension and helped midline alignment of the lower lateral cartilages [40358520]
  • Septal perforation repair with pedicled anterior ethmoidal and greater palatine artery flaps combined with a preserved dorsum, 2 cases aged 62 and 65: racket-on-donut and boot-on-donut variants covered grafts bilaterally [41071182]

Techniques and terms named

push-down [37130993], let-down [37130993], subdorsal strip [42154257], modified subdorsal strip method (MSSM) [38648529], Z flap [38648529], mix-down [42154257], Low Strip Unifying Hybrid Rhinoseptoplasty (LUHRS) [42154257], pyramidal classification [42467617], W-point septoplasty [42467617], swinging door [36826521], L-strut [36826521], dorsal split preservation / Septal T [36787789], spreader graft / autospreader [42053436], anterior septal reconstruction (ASR) [42053436], clocking sutures [42053436], underlay articulated rim graft [42053436], radix graft / supratip graft [42053436], Pitanguy ligament preservation [40550487], scroll area preservation [40550487], dual-plane dissection [40550487], subdomal graft [40550487], bone scoring / cartilage let-down types 1-5 [40481156], hybrid dorsal preservation [40327836], ROE [37130993], RHINO score [42154257], SCHNOS [40195129], NOSE [40195129], MCA1 / MCA2 [42418006], modified subdorsal strip [38366551], spreader flap midvault reconstruction [38366551], dorsal aesthetic line width by AI [41369038], crowdsourced rating [39498873], five tenets against hump recurrence [38722588], seven blocking points [37337323], low septal strip with fixation [39023572], electrocautery ULC contouring [40972537], kyphion angle [40179243], overall surgical success score [40179243], piezo closed preservation [39812015], power-assisted preservation (burr, rasp, microsaw) [41211956], RHINO scale [41211956], mestizo tip support types I-IV [39876773], external strip and internal spreader graft [40327831], W-ASA segment [40327831], J-suture [39026386], NOVA spare roof technique and sail maneuver [40277124], Pitanguy ligament release [39026387, 40358520], racket-on-donut and boot-on-donut flaps [41071182], surface vs foundation techniques [38635957], push-down and let-down in Asian noses [36988641]

Numbers to remember

  • 1,191 consecutive cases; revision 3.4% / 9.9% / 3.3% across three series [42467617]
  • 5967 PR patients in 30 studies; push-down revision 0% vs let-down 5.0% [37130993]
  • 22 studies, n=2,058: no functional difference preservation vs structural [42532128]
  • 4 RCTs, n=419: SMD -0.317 functional, -0.460 cosmetic favoring PR [40227917]
  • 6 studies, n=753: cosmetic advantage lasts to 6 months, none after [40195129]
  • Late-complication OR 0.21 favoring DPR across 9 studies, n=1364 [42418006]
  • 52.9% correct identification of DP vs structural 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 in a 43-patient high-strip CT series [40179243]
  • Revision 6% of 734 closed piezo cases; 1.7% of 417 mestizo cases [39812015, 39876773]
  • RCT n=84: no difference in any outcome at 1 year [38366551]

Numbers

Measure Value Population / study PMID
Revision rate, three series of one surgeon 3.4%, 9.9%, 3.3% 1,191 consecutive DPR primaries, 2010-2024 [42467617]
Revision rate, systematic review 0% push-down vs 5.0% let-down 30 studies, 5,967 patients [37130993]
Revision rate, 2020-2024 literature 0 to 7.9% 13 studies, 855 patients [42154257]
Revision rate, closed piezo preservation 6% 734 primaries [39812015]
Revision rate, closed preservation in mestizo noses 1.7% (7/417) 417 primaries, 6-12 months [39876773]
Hump recurrence, push-down vs let-down 1.3% vs 4.6% (p=0.02) 30 studies, systematic review [37130993]
Hump recurrence by ULC contouring method 2.5% electrocautery vs 13.6% scalpel 205 open low-strip cases [40972537]
Residual hump at 6 months 27.9% 43 high-strip cases with CT [40179243]
Complication rate, low-septal-strip DPR 3.5% (8/231) 231 primaries, 9.7 months [39023572]
Complication rate, power-assisted DPR 8.5% 97 consecutive primaries [41211956]
Complication events, DPR with orthognathic surgery 12.7% (15 events) 118 patients [40481156]
Late complications, DPR vs hump reduction OR 0.21 (0.13-0.33) favoring DPR 9 studies, 1,364 patients [42418006]
Functional PROM, preservation vs structural SMD -0.317 favoring preservation 4 RCTs, 419 patients [40227917]
Cosmetic PROM, preservation vs structural SMD -0.460 to 6 months, none after 6 studies, 753 patients [40195129]
Functional outcome, preservation vs structural No difference 22 studies, 2,058 patients [42532128]
RCT, all outcomes at 1 year No difference (SCHNOS P=.90) 84 randomized patients [38366551]
ROE after preservation rhinoplasty 62.13 to 91.14 30 studies, systematic review [37130993]
ROE after DPR with strip and spreader grafts 56.5 to 92.5; excellent in 90% 152 patients, 16-26 months [40327831]
ROE by contouring method 84.4 scalpel vs 85.0 electrocautery 205 patients [40972537]
NOSE after DPR in Asian noses 61.00 to 15.50 17 patients, median 36.9 months [39056121]
Raters identifying the technique 52.9% correct 78 participants, 3 rater types [40331571]
Crowd detection of surgery r=0.74 structural vs r=-0.06 DPR 34 vs 30 patients [39498873]

What is still contested or missing

  • Pooled MCA2 favored hump reduction (p=0.019) while late complications favored DPR; the authors call the significance "questionable" and ask for trials [42418006]
  • Evidence base is observational (mean Newcastle-Ottawa 5.8) with short follow-up; long-term durability and comparative effectiveness unproven [42154257]
  • Airway-narrowing concern drove the functional review; objective postoperative functional data remain limited [42532128]
  • Terminology confusion across techniques; revisions tripled (3.4% to 9.9%) when indications expanded without a framework [42467617]
  • Whether structural or preservation wins long term is called operator dependent by four senior surgeons with 115 combined years [41025796]
  • Hump recurrence is the most cited reason DP surgeons keep structural techniques in two surveys (117 and 145 surgeons) [38635957, 39505713]
  • Power-assisted and piezo series have no control group and homogeneous populations [41211956, 39812015]
  • Asian DPR evidence is 9 and 17 patients from one surgeon [36988641, 39056121]
  • Cleft application of preservation principles rests on 6 infants and needs normative cleft anatomy references [40358520]

Papers used

  • 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
  • Gucuk D et al.. Shaping the Future of Nasal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Preservation Rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2026. PMID 42154257. DOI 10.1007/s00266-026-05853-9
  • 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
  • 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
  • Raffaini M, Arcuri F. Preservation Rhinoplasty Performed Simultaneously with Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: Last Evolution in Orthofacial Surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2025. PMID 40481156. DOI 10.1007/s00266-025-04919-4
  • Çakır B, Coşkun E. Trial, Error, and Expertise: My Evolution Through Structural and Preservation Rhinoplasty Techniques. Facial Plast Surg 2025. PMID 40550487. DOI 10.1055/a-2622-3114
  • 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
  • Tremp M et al.. A Systematic Analysis of the Nasal Septum in Crooked Noses and Suggested Treatment Algorithm According to Preservation Rhinoplasty (PR) Principles. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023. PMID 36826521. DOI 10.1007/s00266-023-03293-3
  • Wells MW et al.. Exploring the Resurgence of the Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Literature Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023. PMID 37130993. DOI 10.1007/s00266-023-03345-8
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Goksel A et al.. The Blocking Points: The Keys to Consistent Success in Preservation Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2024. PMID 37337323. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010851
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Taglialatela Scafati S et al.. Power-Assisted Preservation Rhinoplasty: Experience in 97 Consecutive Cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2026. PMID 41211956. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012594
  • Valdivia C et al.. Closed Preservation Rhinoplasty in the Mestizo Patient: Challenges and Techniques for Nasal Tip Support. Aesthet Surg J 2025. PMID 39876773. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjaf017
  • 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
  • Santos M et al.. Preservation Rhinoplasty by the Ones Who Do It: A Worldwide Survey. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2024. PMID 38635957. DOI 10.1089/fpsam.2024.0007
  • 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
  • Sergesketter AR et al.. Aspects and Concepts of What I Preserve in Rhinoplasty: Proceedings of the 2025 American Society of Plastic Surgeons Spring Meeting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2026. PMID 41025796. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012482
  • Nissan ME, Kosins A. Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Decade of Progress and Technical Refinement. Aesthet Surg J 2026. PMID 42455864. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjag100
  • Levy J et al.. Advancing Preservation Rhinoplasty: The J-Suture Technique for Refining the Middle Third of the Nose. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 39026386. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011647
  • 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 J et al.. Pitanguy Ligament Preservation in Structural Precision Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 39026387. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011652
  • Tanikawa D et al.. Introducing Preservation Rhinoplasty Principles to Cleft Nasal Surgery: Unveiling the Role of Nasal Ligaments in Infant Anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2026. PMID 40358520. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012197
  • Mariño-Sanchez F et al.. "Pedicled Flaps for Nasal Septal Perforation and Graft Framework: Enhancing Outcomes in Preservation and Structural Rhinoplasty". Plast Reconstr Surg 2025. PMID 41071182. DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000012511

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

Start here

The 38 papers the synthesis above was written from.

  1. APS
    2026PMID 42418006Summary
  2. APS
    2026PMID 42154257Summary
  3. FPS
    2026PMID 42532128Summary
  4. PRS
    2026PMID 42467617Summary
  5. PRS
    2026PMID 42053436Summary
  6. APS
    2025PMID 40195129Summary
  7. APS
    2025PMID 40481156Summary
  8. FPS
    2025PMID 40550487Summary
  9. FPSAM
    2025PMID 40227917Summary
  10. PRS
    2025PMID 40327836Summary
  11. FPSAM
    2024PMID 38648529Summary
  12. APS
    2023PMID 36826521Summary
  13. APS
    2023PMID 37130993Summary
  14. FPS
    2023PMID 36787789Summary
  15. ASJ
    2024PMID 38366551Summary
  16. ASJ
    2026PMID 41369038Summary
  17. PRS
    2025PMID 40331571Summary
  18. ASJ
    2025PMID 39498873Summary
  19. PRS
    2025PMID 38722588Summary
  20. PRS
    2024PMID 37337323Summary
  21. PRS
    2025PMID 39023572Summary
  22. ASJ
    2025PMID 40972537Summary
  23. ASJ
    2025PMID 40179243Summary
  24. ASJ
    2025PMID 39812015Summary
  25. PRS
    Power-Assisted Preservation Rhinoplasty: Experience in 97 Consecutive Cases
    Taglialatela Scafati S, Russo R, D'Angelo D et al.
    2026PMID 41211956Summary
  26. ASJ
    2025PMID 39876773Summary
  27. PRS
    2025PMID 40327831Summary
  28. FPSAM
    2024PMID 39056121Summary
  29. PRS
    2024PMID 36988641Summary
  30. FPSAM
    2024PMID 38635957Summary
  31. FPSAM
    2025PMID 39505713Summary
  32. PRS
    2026PMID 41025796Summary
  33. ASJ
    2026PMID 42455864Summary
  34. PRS
    2025PMID 39026386Summary
  35. FPSAM
    2025PMID 40277124Summary
  36. PRS
    2025PMID 39026387Summary
  37. PRS
    2026PMID 40358520Summary
  38. PRS
    2025PMID 41071182Summary

Related topics

115

Dorsum and hump

115 of the 193 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
42

Anatomy and nasal analysis

42 of the 193 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
30

Septum, valve and airway

30 of the 193 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic
30

Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology

30 of the 193 papers here also match this topic.

Open topic

Every paper, by year

193 papers. The 38 Start here papers are not repeated.

202628 papers · 10 above
  1. APS
    PMID 42045684Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 41345307Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 40770501Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 42159722Summary
  5. APS
    Roof Modification Methods in Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Tuncel U, Yurtsever OH, Lazovic G et al.
    PMID 40797126Summary
  6. FPS
    PMID 39965762Summary
  7. FPS
    PMID 41794044Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 40897332Summary
  9. FPS
    PMID 42476522Summary
  10. FPS
    PMID 41881415Summary
  11. FPS
    PMID 40185154Summary
  12. FPSAM
    PMID 38648531
  13. FPSAM
    PMID 42481923
  14. FPS Clin
    PMID 42091331Summary
  15. PRS
    PMID 41427759
  16. PRS
    PMID 41677802
  17. PRS
    PMID 42695808
  18. PRS-GO
    PMID 41907079Summary
202551 papers · 19 above
  1. APS
    PMID 39117869Summary
  2. APS
    PMID 40195130Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 39174803Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 39191923Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 39134679
  6. APS
    PMID 40204933Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 39966153Summary
  8. APS
    PMID 38488907Summary
  9. APS
    PMID 39929983Summary
  10. APS
    PMID 39227471Summary
  11. APS
    PMID 39557639Summary
  12. APS
    PMID 38977457Summary
  13. FPS
    PMID 41338277Summary
  14. FPS
    PMID 38547913Summary
  15. FPS
    Step-up Maneuver for Radix Control in Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Carlos Neves J, Rijo-Cedeño J, Filgueiras H et al.
    PMID 40854550Summary
  16. FPS
    PMID 40194547Summary
  17. FPS
    PMID 41237818Summary
  18. FPS
    PMID 40216394
  19. FPS
    PMID 38772398Summary
  20. FPSAM
    PMID 39505719
  21. FPSAM
    PMID 40277084
  22. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253110Summary
  23. FPS Clin
    Expanding Indications to Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Ferraz MBJ, Sella GCP, Pandini F et al.
    PMID 40253106Summary
  24. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253112Summary
  25. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253103Summary
  26. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253115
  27. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253104Summary
  28. FPS Clin
    PMID 40253100Summary
  29. PRS
    PMID 40865067
  30. PRS
    PMID 39999233
  31. PRS
    PMID 41148158
  32. PRS-GO
    PMID 41050978Summary
202414 papers · 6 above
  1. APS
    PMID 38587673
  2. APS
    PMID 38839611Summary
  3. APS
    PMID 38483551Summary
  4. FPS
    PMID 38733998
  5. FPS
    PMID 38471660Summary
  6. FPSAM
    PMID 39087910Summary
  7. FPS Clin
    Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Carlos Neves J, Toriumi DM, Göksel A
    PMID 39341675Summary
  8. PRS-GO
    PMID 39185377Summary
202333 papers · 3 above
  1. ASJ
    PMID 37338117Summary
  2. ASJ
    PMID 37707591
  3. ASJ
    PMID 36402140Full text
  4. ASJ
    PMID 35908175Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 37328654Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 37069352Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 36302983Summary
  8. APS
    PMID 37169892
  9. APS
    PMID 36651982Full text
  10. APS
    PMID 36648530Summary
  11. APS
    PMID 36316459Summary
  12. APS
    PMID 36460772Summary
  13. FPS
    PMID 35577032Summary
  14. FPS
    PMID 36423627Summary
  15. FPS
    PMID 37437583Summary
  16. FPS
    PMID 37160159Summary
  17. FPSAM
    PMID 36282776
  18. FPSAM
    PMID 36282789Summary
  19. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396283Summary
  20. FPS Clin
    My Approach to Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Çakır B, Genç B, Finocchi V et al.
    PMID 36396287Summary
  21. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396289Summary
  22. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396280Summary
  23. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396286Summary
  24. FPS Clin
    PMID 36396285Summary
  25. PRS
    PMID 36827472Summary
  26. PRS
    PMID 36723632Summary
  27. PRS
    PMID 36730568Summary
  28. PRS
    Twisted Nose: Preservation Rhinoplasty with Modified Push-Down/Let-Down Technique
    Jasso-Ramírez E, Burgos-Páez A, Sánchez Y Béjar F et al.
    PMID 36729920Summary
  29. PRS-GO
    PMID 37063499Summary
  30. PRS-GO
    PMID 37197013Summary
202217 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 34546291
  2. ASJ
    PMID 34436559Summary
  3. ASJ
    PMID 35443047Summary
  4. APS
    Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty
    Almazov I, Rovira RV, Farhadov V
    PMID 35169916Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 35320375
  6. APS
    PMID 33987697Summary
  7. APS
    PMID 35169915Summary
  8. APS
    PMID 35737021Summary
  9. CPS
    PMID 34782143Summary
  10. FPSAM
    PMID 35172105Summary
  11. FPSAM
    PMID 35167351
  12. FPSAM
    PMID 33970690Summary
  13. FPSAM
    PMID 35357956Summary
  14. FPSAM
    PMID 34265221
  15. FPSAM
    PMID 35724256Summary
  16. PRS
    PMID 35259146Summary
  17. PRS-GO
    PMID 35356042Summary
202131 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 33141889
  2. ASJ
    PMID 32185397Summary
  3. ASJ
    PMID 32492137Summary
  4. APS
    PMID 33469699
  5. APS
    PMID 33399951Summary
  6. FPS
    PMID 33621986Summary
  7. FPS
    PMID 33648013Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 33506451Summary
  9. FPS
    PMID 33556970Summary
  10. FPS
    PMID 33634452Summary
  11. FPS
    PMID 33715148Summary
  12. FPS
    PMID 33845495
  13. FPS
    PMID 33626587Summary
  14. FPS
    The Segmental Preservation Rhinoplasty: The Split Tetris Concept
    Neves JC, Arancibia-Tagle D, Dewes W et al.
    PMID 32886949Summary
  15. FPSAM
    PMID 33861635Summary
  16. FPSAM
    PMID 33635128
  17. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220847Summary
  18. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220836Summary
  19. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220839Summary
  20. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220841Summary
  21. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220835Summary
  22. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220846Summary
  23. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220844Summary
  24. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220837Summary
  25. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220849
  26. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220848
  27. FPS Clin
    PMID 33220845Summary
  28. PRS
    PMID 33565827Summary
  29. PRS
    PMID 33835079
  30. PRS
    PMID 34270513Summary
  31. PRS-GO
    PMID 33564570Summary
202012 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 31621820
  2. ASJ
    PMID 31912863
  3. ASJ
    PMID 30958525Summary
  4. ASJ
    PMID 30980075Summary
  5. APS
    PMID 32016500Summary
  6. APS
    PMID 32055938
  7. APS
    PMID 32133555Summary
  8. FPS
    PMID 32557440Summary
  9. FPS
    PMID 32750725Summary
  10. FPSAM
    PMID 32130066Summary
  11. PRS
    PMID 34415895
  12. PRS-GO
    PMID 32309099Full text
20196 papers
  1. FPS
    PMID 30759464
  2. JAMA FPS
    PMID 30789649Summary
  3. PRS
    PMID 31461009
  4. PRS
    PMID 31461008
  5. PRS
    PMID 31461007Summary
  6. PRS
    PMID 31764677
20181 papers
  1. ASJ
    PMID 29319790