The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

[BACKGROUND] The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of spreader grafts and autospreader flaps in the context of middle vault reconstruction after dorsal hump removal.

[MATERIAL AND METHODS] A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cinahl, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for Clinical and observational studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals with abstracts available that reported rhinoplasty employing either spreader graft or autospreader flap techniques and were published prior to March, 2021.

[RESULTS] Fifty-two of 1129 relevant studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Thirty-four studies (65.4%) were related to spreader graft (SG), 10 (21.1%) studies of autospreader flap (AF) alone and 8 (13.5%) studies involving both grafts. Meta-analysis was performed on 17 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of - 23.9 (95% CI, - 26.7 to - 21.1) points. High heterogeneity with I = 99%. Summary data showed no differences between groups, AF group versus no graft (p = 0.7578), AF versus SF group (p = 0.9948), and SG group versus no graft (p = 0.6608).

[CONCLUSION] Based on available data, change in NOSE scores after rhinoplasty was similar in procedures that used spreader graft only or autospreader flap only.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.