Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical).
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-Surgical Rhinoplasty After Nasal Skin Cancer Reconstruction: Enhancing Esthetic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty by Cartilage Allograft.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Letter on Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical).Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Granular Nanofiber-Hydrogel Composite-Programmed Regenerative Inflammation and Adipose Tissue Formation.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical).Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Assessment of Harms Reporting Quality in Randomized Controlled Trials of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe author presented his experience using "fat grafting" (FG) and "hyaluronic acid" (HA) techniques in nasal remodeling.
objectivesThe paper aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of FG and HA in nasal remodeling for aesthetic improvement.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted. 15 patients affected by soft defects of the dorsum, low and boxy nasal tip, and hidden columella, were treated with FG (study group-SG), comparing results with the control group (CG) (n = 17) treated with hyaluronic acid (HA). Post-operative follow-up took place at 1, 2, 4, weeks, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually.
results73.7% of SG patients showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with only 29.7% of CG patients. At one-month, major part of people who underwent the treatments (FG and HA) referred to satisfaction with the resulting volume contours (p = 0.389). 88.3% of CG patients versus 53.8% of SG described the HA and FG injection, respectively, as a very comfortable and non-invasive procedure. As expected, patient satisfaction with the appearance of nasal contouring was higher in the FG group at 1 year.
conclusionsFG and HA were safe and effective in this series of cases performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.