Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) is increasingly popular, with some suggesting superior outcomes over open structural rhinoplasty (OSR). To date, there has been little investigation into comparative outcomes between the techniques. This study aims to ascertain whether experts in the field can differentiate between the techniques in aesthetic outcomes.</p> Methods <p>A survey was created that consisted of OSR and DPR cases with an average 2.5 month and 1 year follow-up. The survey was distributed to the Rhinoplasty Society and Dallas Rhinoplasty instructors. Results were correlated to expertise in rhinoplasty. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square or Fischer’s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test for continuous variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between study variables. Statistical significance was defined as <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05.</p> Results <p>Fifty-one plastic surgeons responded (24.2 % response rate). Participants averaged almost 10 years of experience, with an average 58 rhinoplasties performed annually. 59% used open techniques and 39% used both open and closed. 54.5% utilized preservation techniques. The average correct survey score was 58% at 2.5 months and 61% at 1 year. There was no positive correlation between survey score and rhinoplasties performed, experience in years, comfort level or utilization of preservation rhinoplasty techniques.</p> Conclusions <p>The study demonstrates no discernable differences in aesthetic results when using OSR and DPR techniques at 1 year after surgery. Ultimately, OSR and DPR techniques should both be considered and potentially combined, when performing rhinoplasty.</p> Level of Evidence V <p>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 <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Open Structural Versus Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Comparative Survey Study of Aesthetic Outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月6日

查看全文
  • Nishant Ganesh Kumar,
  • Sean M. Fisher,
  • William Rifkin,
  • Zachary Borab,
  • Rami Sherif,
  • Rod J. Rohrich

摘要

Introduction

Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) is increasingly popular, with some suggesting superior outcomes over open structural rhinoplasty (OSR). To date, there has been little investigation into comparative outcomes between the techniques. This study aims to ascertain whether experts in the field can differentiate between the techniques in aesthetic outcomes.

Methods

A survey was created that consisted of OSR and DPR cases with an average 2.5 month and 1 year follow-up. The survey was distributed to the Rhinoplasty Society and Dallas Rhinoplasty instructors. Results were correlated to expertise in rhinoplasty. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square or Fischer’s exact test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test for continuous variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between study variables. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results

Fifty-one plastic surgeons responded (24.2 % response rate). Participants averaged almost 10 years of experience, with an average 58 rhinoplasties performed annually. 59% used open techniques and 39% used both open and closed. 54.5% utilized preservation techniques. The average correct survey score was 58% at 2.5 months and 61% at 1 year. There was no positive correlation between survey score and rhinoplasties performed, experience in years, comfort level or utilization of preservation rhinoplasty techniques.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates no discernable differences in aesthetic results when using OSR and DPR techniques at 1 year after surgery. Ultimately, OSR and DPR techniques should both be considered and potentially combined, when performing rhinoplasty.

Level of Evidence V

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.