Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Estudios y Perspecti...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Estudios y Perspectivas Revista Científica y Académica
Article . 2026 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
addClaim

Rinoplastia Ultrasónica Versus Rinoplastia Tradicional: Comparación De Resultados Estéticos, Funcionales y Tasas de Complicaciones

Authors: Iván Pedro Rodríguez; Abril Alejandra Heres Macedo; Carlos Tadeo Velazquez Ramirez; Alina Calderón González; André Ocampo Funes;

Rinoplastia Ultrasónica Versus Rinoplastia Tradicional: Comparación De Resultados Estéticos, Funcionales y Tasas de Complicaciones

Abstract

Introducción: La rinoplastia ultrasónica (RU), basada en instrumentos piezoeléctricos, permite osteotomías y remodelado óseo selectivo con menor traumatismo de tejidos blandos respecto a la técnica tradicional (cincel/osteótomo/lima) (2–6). Persisten dudas sobre diferencias clínicamente relevantes en resultados estéticos, funcionales y en las tasas de complicaciones (3–6,10–13,16–18).Objetivo: Comparar, de forma narrativa, la evidencia 2015–2025 sobre resultados estéticos (ROE/FACE-Q), funcionales (NOSE/SCHNOS-F), recuperación temprana (equimosis/edema) y complicaciones de la RU frente a la técnica tradicional. Metodología: Revisión narrativa con principios PRISMA-2020 para transparencia (1). Búsquedas en PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus y Web of Science (enero-2015–agosto-2025; sin restricción de idioma). Dos revisores realizaron cribado y extracción independiente; debido a heterogeneidad de diseños/mediciones no se efectuó metaanálisis. Se priorizaron estudios comparativos y series con PROMs validados (ROE, FACE-Q, NOSE, SCHNOS) (7,8,14). Resultados: La RU se asocia de forma consistente con menor equimosis/edema en la primera semana y con mayor control de las osteotomías (2–6,10–12). Los resultados estéticos posoperatorios son comparables entre técnicas, con ventaja discreta de RU en regularidad del dorso en casos seleccionados (2,4–6,10–13). En función nasal, ambas mejoran NOSE respecto al basal; las diferencias inter-técnica suelen ser pequeñas y no siempre significativas (3,5,7,12,15). Las tasas de complicaciones mayores son bajas y similares cuando se aplican protocolos estandarizados (4–6,11,12,16–18). La curva de aprendizaje y la selección del caso modulan la magnitud del beneficio de RU (2,4,6,9,13). Conclusiones: La RU ofrece beneficios perioperatorios (menos equimosis/edema) y precisión ósea, con resultados estéticos y funcionales globalmente comparables y perfil de seguridad similar a la técnica tradicional en manos experimentadas. La decisión debe individualizarse considerando anatomía, objetivos del paciente, experiencia del cirujano, recursos y curva de aprendizaje

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold