Piezosurgery versus conventional osteotomy in rhinoplasty: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Piezosurgery, used in different otolaryngology procedures, was a breakthrough in surgery. We systematically reviewed the differences in outcomes after lateral nasal osteotomy with peizosurgery and conventional osteotome and quantified the differences through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were selected to search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before January 2019 that detailed differences between piezosurgery and conventional osteotomy. The key search terms included "rhinoplasty" and "piezosurgery." Only RCTs in English with patients >18 years who underwent lateral osteotomy by percutaneous or internal approaches were included. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction and study inclusion. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the studies. The point of estimate in the meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference and was pooled with the random-effects model. The measured outcomes were ecchymosis, edema, postoperative pain, and duration of surgery. RESULTS: Five RCTs met our criteria and were analyzed in primary subsequent meta-analyses. Piezosurgery demonstrated significantly lower edema (SMD = -0.75; 95% CI, -1.26, -0.24) and ecchymosis scores (SMD = -0.85; 95% CI, -1.49, -0.20) on postoperative days (POD) 2 or 3 than conventional surgery. They were also significantly lower with piezosurgery than conventional surgery on POD 7 (SMD = -0.64; 95% CI, -1.21, -0.06; and SMD = -0.64; 95% CI, -1.14, -0.14, respectively). Two studies that estimated the degree of pain showed that after piezosurgery, patients experienced lesser pain than after conventional surgery. The mean difference was -0.73 (95% CI, -1.06, -0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Piezosurgery causes less ecchymosis, edema, and pain than conventional osteotomy, without extending the duration of surgery. Laryngoscope, 130:1158-1165, 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".