Evaluating the Safety of Rhinoplasty in Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking's impact on tissue perfusion and wound healing is particularly relevant in rhinoplasty, where precise tissue healing is crucial for functional and aesthetic outcomes. Although the nasal region's robust vascular supply mitigates smoking's detrimental effects, concerns remain about postoperative complications. This study investigates whether smoking should be contraindicated for rhinoplasty by comparing infection and revision rates between smokers and nonsmokers. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 1884 rhinoplasty cases from 2014 to 2022. Patients were categorized as active smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. Only patients with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. All procedures were open rhinoplasties conducted under general anesthesia. Primary outcomes analyzed included infection and revision rates. Between-group statistical comparisons were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1884 patients consisted of 80 active smokers, 39 former smokers, and 1765 nonsmokers. Average follow-up was 23.8 months. The overall revision rate was 3.3%, with 3.8% in smokers and 3.3% in nonsmokers; 3.8% of smokers required additional antibiotics for cellulitis compared with 1.6% of nonsmokers; all cases resolved without long-term complications. There were no significant differences between smoker and nonsmoker rhinoplasty patients in rates of revision, postoperative infection, or wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: Active smoking does not appear to be a strict contraindication for rhinoplasty. Smoker and nonsmoker primary and revision rhinoplasty patients exhibited similar revision, postoperative infection, and wound complication rates. This suggests that, with proper perioperative optimization, rhinoplasty can be safely performed in smokers. Although smoking cessation should still be recommended, it may not be mandatory for satisfactory outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".