Cargando…
Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review
Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9507448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36159386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756315 |
_version_ | 1784796867413934080 |
---|---|
author | Gupta, Rohun John, Jithin Ranganathan, Noopur Stepanian, Rima Gupta, Monik Hart, Justin Nossoni, Farideddin Shaheen, Kenneth Folbe, Adam Chaiyasate, Kongkrit |
author_facet | Gupta, Rohun John, Jithin Ranganathan, Noopur Stepanian, Rima Gupta, Monik Hart, Justin Nossoni, Farideddin Shaheen, Kenneth Folbe, Adam Chaiyasate, Kongkrit |
author_sort | Gupta, Rohun |
collection | PubMed |
description | Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This study uses published research to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to superior patient outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews were followed and a literature search was conducted in four databases based on our search strategy. Articles were then imported into COVIDENCE where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. Twenty articles were selected in this study after 243 articles were screened. There were 4 case series, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 1 case–control, and 2 outcomes research. There were three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that included both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies utilized both open and closed rhinoplasty and four utilized open rhinoplasty. Both techniques demonstrated high patient and provider satisfaction and no advantage was found between techniques. Based on available studies, we cannot conclude if there is a preference between open or closed rhinoplasty in terms of which technique leads to better patient outcomes. Several studies determined that open rhinoplasty and closed rhinoplasty leads to comparative patient satisfaction. To make outcome reporting more reliable and uniform among studies, authors should look to utilize the Nasal Obstruction and Septoplasty Effectiveness scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9507448 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95074482022-09-24 Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review Gupta, Rohun John, Jithin Ranganathan, Noopur Stepanian, Rima Gupta, Monik Hart, Justin Nossoni, Farideddin Shaheen, Kenneth Folbe, Adam Chaiyasate, Kongkrit Arch Plast Surg Open and closed rhinoplasty are two main approaches to perform nasal modifications. According to current literature, there is no current consensus among plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists on which technique is preferred in terms of aesthetic result, complications, and patient satisfaction. This study uses published research to determine whether open or closed rhinoplasty leads to superior patient outcomes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews were followed and a literature search was conducted in four databases based on our search strategy. Articles were then imported into COVIDENCE where they underwent primary screening and full-text review. Twenty articles were selected in this study after 243 articles were screened. There were 4 case series, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 1 case–control, and 2 outcomes research. There were three cosmetic studies, eight functional studies, and nine studies that included both cosmetic and functional components. Sixteen studies utilized both open and closed rhinoplasty and four utilized open rhinoplasty. Both techniques demonstrated high patient and provider satisfaction and no advantage was found between techniques. Based on available studies, we cannot conclude if there is a preference between open or closed rhinoplasty in terms of which technique leads to better patient outcomes. Several studies determined that open rhinoplasty and closed rhinoplasty leads to comparative patient satisfaction. To make outcome reporting more reliable and uniform among studies, authors should look to utilize the Nasal Obstruction and Septoplasty Effectiveness scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 2022-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9507448/ /pubmed/36159386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756315 Text en The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Gupta, Rohun John, Jithin Ranganathan, Noopur Stepanian, Rima Gupta, Monik Hart, Justin Nossoni, Farideddin Shaheen, Kenneth Folbe, Adam Chaiyasate, Kongkrit Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title | Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Outcomes of Closed versus Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | outcomes of closed versus open rhinoplasty: a systematic review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9507448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36159386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756315 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guptarohun outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT johnjithin outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT ranganathannoopur outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT stepanianrima outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT guptamonik outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT hartjustin outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT nossonifarideddin outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT shaheenkenneth outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT folbeadam outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview AT chaiyasatekongkrit outcomesofclosedversusopenrhinoplastyasystematicreview |