Rhinoplasty—Do Patients and Surgeons See the Same? A Double-Blind Study with 100 Randomized Patients

Abstract

One of the key points of a successful rhinoplasty is communication between the patient and surgeon. The surgeon needs to get a clear understanding of the patient's motivation for surgery and expectations of the procedure. This information is mandatory in formulating an optimal surgical plan and managing realistic expectations of the procedures. Ideally, surgeons and patients see, discuss, and quantify the same nasal defects. In reality, the subjective nature of perceiving aesthetics can cause variability of inter-rating nasal appearance. Therefore, one might question how well surgeons understand their patients. Do they see what patients see? The aim of this study is to assess the level of agreement on the evaluation of nasal appearance between patients, surgeons, and nonphysicians observers, and try to find predictive factors that cause high interobserver variability. This prospective, observational, and cross-sectional study was performed on a total of 100 randomized patients undergoing rhinoplasty. All patients were photographed before surgery and asked to rate the appearance of their nose on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS) with 0 indicating very ugly and 10 indicating very nice. Subsequently, the photographs of each patient were, independently, rated by two panels: one constituted by two rhinoplasty surgeons and the other by four nonmedical raters. Both panels included European raters from the north (The Netherlands) and south (Portugal). Data regarding age, gender, skin type, and major nasal deformity were also collected. The authors found that there is no statistical agreement between the aesthetical evaluation of the nose between patients and surgeons or patients and nonmedical raters. Based exclusively on the VAS for subjective evaluation of nasal appearance, the authors' findings show that surgeons and patients do not “see the same” and generally, the score attributed by the surgeon is more favorable (almost 1 point higher) than the auto-assessment's score. This is important to realize when communicating about nasal appearance before rhinoplasty.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - aesthetic - aesthetical perception - self-assessment - rhinoplasty outcome

• References

• 1 Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Cakli H. Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon's perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2012; 121 (05) 322-327
• 2 Kotzampasakis D, Mantalos P, Kotzampasakis S, Danias N, Nikolopoulos T. Assessment of aesthetic results of 100 patients who underwent rhinoplasty – rhinoplasty outcome evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5 (09) e1404
• 3 Woodard CR, Park SS. Nasal and facial analysis. Clin Plast Surg 2010; 37 (02) 181-189
• 4 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (04) 1807-1811
• 5 East C, Badia L, Marsh D, Pusic A, Klassen AF. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q: a single site study. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (05) 461-469
• 6 Niehaus R, Kovacs L, Machens HG, Herschbach P, Papadopulos NA. Quality of life – changes after rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (05) 530-536
• 7 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
• 8 Pitak-Arnnop P, Hemprich A, Dhanuthai K, Yildirim V, Pausch NC. Panel and patient perceptions of nasal aesthetics after secondary cleft rhinoplasty with versus without columellar grafting. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011; 39 (05) 319-325
• 9 Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M. , et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 2010; 19 (08) 1087-1096
• 10 Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (01) 469-480 , discussion 481–482
• 11 Lohuis PJ, Hakim S, Duivesteijn W, Knobbe A, Tasman AJ. Benefits of a short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (06) 913e-923e
• 12 Datema FR, van Zijl FVWJ, van der Poel EF, Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Lohuis PJFM. Transparency in functional rhinoplasty: benefits of routine prospective outcome measurements in a tertiary referral center. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (04) 691-702
• 13 Broer PN, Buonocore S, Morillas A. , et al. Nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (06) 843e-850e
• 14 Wang F, Xu G, Gruber RP. Rhinoplasty results are influenced by non-nasal features. Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33 (02) 207-212
• 15 Daniel RK, Kosins A, Sajjadian A, Cakir B, Palhasi P, Molnar G. Rhinoplasty and brow modification: a powerful combination. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (07) 983-994
• 16 Ferreira MG, Monteiro D, Reis C, Almeida e Sousa C. Spare Roof Technique: a middle third new technique. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (01) 111-116