Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes of Simultaneous Rhinoplasty and Lip Lift Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhinoplasty and lip lift surgeries are pivotal procedures in facial aesthetics, addressing nose and lip enhancements, respectively. The concurrent execution of these surgeries has gained popularity for achieving improved facial balance and harmony. However, data on the outcomes of combined rhinoplasty and lip lift procedures remain limited. This study aims to evaluate the aesthetic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction of simultaneous rhinoplasty and lip lift surgeries. This systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Science Direct, and Web of Science was performed, focusing on studies reporting simultaneous rhinoplasty and lip lift surgeries. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Data on aesthetic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction were extracted and synthesized. A total of six studies, encompassing 361 patients, were included. Results demonstrated high patient satisfaction, with favorable aesthetic outcomes such as improved nasolabial and frontonasal angles and shortened lip length. Minimal complications were reported, with mild scarring and temporary paraesthesia being the most common, both resolving within a few months. Functional outcomes were positive, with no long-term impairments in nasal airflow or lip function. Simultaneous rhinoplasty and lip lift surgeries yield high patient satisfaction and excellent aesthetic outcomes with minimal complications. The findings suggest this combined approach is safe and effective, particularly for patients seeking enhanced facial harmony. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes and the optimization of surgical techniques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".