The Limits of Evidence in Rhinoplasty.

Autores da FMUP

• Rui Manuel Lopes Nunes

  Autor

Participantes de fora da FMUP

• Gassner HG
• Ordonez F

Unidades de investigação

• Laboratório Associado RISE- Rede de Investigação em Saúde

  

  Investigador

  Fernando Carlos De Landér Schmitt

• Medicina da Comunidade, Informação e Decisão em Saúde

• RISE-Health

  

  Investigador

  Fernando Carlos De Landér Schmitt

Abstract

The broad trend toward minimally invasive methods in most surgical fields is contrasted by rhinoplasty: Extended open approaches, an increasing number of grafting techniques, donor site depletion, and extensive osteotomies seem to indicate a trend away from minimally invasive methodology for this particular procedure. This article intends to analyze which factors are involved in this and related developments in rhinoplasty.Evidence-based methodology sets the standards for scientific analysis. For rhinoplasty, however, limitations of established scientific methodology are identified. These include the relative lack of objective outcome measures and the impact of various systematic biases on reported results. These biases include operator dependence, interdependence of techniques, biased selection of outcome parameters, and orthodox treatment bias. Upon critical review, the importance of systematic biases may outweigh the impact of evidence-based study in rhinoplasty. Results should therefore be interpreted with caution. Strategies are suggested to identify and mitigate the impact of biases and to improve reporting and outcome analyses in rhinoplasty.

Thieme. All rights reserved.