A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Complications Associated With Autogenous Diced Cartilage Wrapped in Fascia Used in Nasal Dorsum Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal dorsum augmentation is a highly challenging rhinoplastic procedure. Problems encountered in this surgery, such as residual humps, irregularities, and asymmetry, account for a significant number of revision rhinoplasties. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess complication rates and graft harvesting site morbidity and revision rates. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature for pertinent materials in PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar up to and including August 2020. In addition, the reference list of included studies was searched manually. The criteria used were those described in the PRISMA Declaration for performing systematic reviews. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 236 results. After 3 stages of screening, 16 papers (18 groups) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Our results indicated that the total rates for the complications studied were as follows: graft resorption, 2.52%; insufficient augmentation, 3.93%; deviation (graft displacement), 1.77%; infection, 2.30%; irregularity, 1.36%; supra-tip depression, 1.13%; overcorrection, 3.06%; hematoma at recipient site, 1.36%; and visible bulging of the graft, 2.64%. The total rates for donor site hypertrophic scar and donor site hematoma were 2.64% and 3.58%, respectively. The rate of the revision surgery was 3.03%. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings suggest the overall complications and revision rates with the use of diced cartilage wrapped in fascia for dorsum augmentation were relatively low and this technique is a reliable treatment choice for patients with primary/secondary dorsum deficiencies. Further studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups, clearer definitions of complications, and objective measurements are warranted to draw reliable practical conclusions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".