목적: A direct comparison between preservation rhinoplasty (PR) and structural rhinoplasty (SR) for hump nose correction remains limited in the literature. This study aims to evaluate subjective patient-reported outcomes of PR versus SR, drawing insights from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 방법:A thorough literature search was conducted across PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. RCTs that compared PR and SR in patients with dorsal humps, focusing on patient-reported functional and cosmetic outcomes, were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effects models, and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 2.0). 결과:Out of 38 initially identified studies, four RCTs encompassing 419 patients (PR: 200, SR: 219) met the inclusion criteria. The participants' mean age ranged from 26.3 to 35.2 years, with females comprising 50%–90% of the study population. PR demonstrated significantly better functional (SMD -0.317 [95% CI -0.509 to -0.124]) and cosmetic (SMD -0.460 [95% CI -0.851 to -0.069]) outcomes compared to SR. Functional outcomes showed minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0%), while cosmetic outcomes had moderate heterogeneity (I² = 67%). 결론:Preservation rhinoplasty outperforms structural rhinoplasty in correcting hump nose, offering critical insights for clinical decision- making and improving patient satisfaction.