PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2020; 36(05): 670-678
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714268
Original Research

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Marc Levin 
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Hedyeh Ziai
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Michael Roskies
1   Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Recently, dorsal preservation rhinoplasty has been gained acceptance among facial plastic surgeons. Despite this, there is limited literature on patient satisfaction following preservation rhinoplasty. This systematic review aims to evaluate all studies quantifying patient satisfaction and to compare results between structural and dorsal preservation rhinoplasty. OVID Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched. All studies from the years 2010 to 2020 evaluating satisfaction in patients receiving either structural or dorsal preservation rhinoplasty were included. Data regarding study demographics as well as patient satisfaction results were extracted from included studies. Descriptive results and analysis were calculated. A total of 2,172 articles were initially identified, of which 29 articles were included in the final analysis. Of the 29 articles, 25 were focused on structural rhinoplasty and 4 were focused on preservation rhinoplasty. Of the 25 structural rhinoplasty articles, 17 used the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction and 5 used the FACE-Q scale. Among the 25 structural rhinoplasty studies, 14 (56%) reported statistically significant improvements in patient satisfaction evaluation scores after rhinoplasty. Among the four preservation rhinoplasty studies, one (25%) study reported significant improvements in satisfaction scores after rhinoplasty. Despite this, most studies included a statement that satisfaction improved in patients following rhinoplasty. Literature in this review supports both structural and preservation rhinoplasty, resulting in high satisfactory results for patients following surgery. More research must be conducted to further quantify satisfaction following preservation rhinoplasty and prospectively compare satisfaction between the two rhinoplasty techniques.

Keywords

patient satisfaction - PROMs - preservation rhinoplasty - rhinoplasty


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. August 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2018. Available at: Accessed April 9, 2020 https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ISAPS-Global-Survey-Results-2018-new.pdf
  • 2 Arslan E, Aksoy A. Upper lateral cartilage-sparing component dorsal hump reduction in primary rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2007; 117 (06) 990-996
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Rohrich RJ, Muzaffar AR, Janis JE. Component dorsal hump reduction: the importance of maintaining dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (05) 1298-1308 , discussion 1309–1312
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Taş S. Dorsal roof technique for dorsum preservation in rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (03) 263-275
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Saban Y, Daniel RK, Polselli R, Trapasso M, Palhazi P. Dorsal preservation: the push down technique reassessed. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 117-131
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Montes-Bracchini JJ. Nasal profile hump reduction using the let-down technique. Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35 (05) 486-491
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Xiao H, Zhao Y, Liu L, Xiao M, Qiu W, Liu Y. Functional/aesthetic measures of patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a review. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (10) 1057-1062
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y. Evaluation of preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (03) 603-611
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Daniel RK. The preservation rhinoplasty: a new rhinoplasty revolution. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (02) 228-229
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339 (21) b2700
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kalaaji A, Dreyer S, Schnegg J, Sanosyan L, Radovic T, Maric I. Assessment of rhinoplasty outcomes with FACE-Q rhinoplasty module: Norwegian linguistic validation and clinical application in 243 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (09) e2448
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Calvert DJ. Preservation Rhinoplasty Continues to Grow in Demand Says Rhinoplasty Society President Dr. Jay Calvert. Available at: Accessed April 9, 2020 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/preservation-rhinoplasty-continues-to-grow-in-demand-says-rhinoplasty-society-president-dr-jay-calvert-300857160.html
  • 13 Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV. et al. Normal values for the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (04) 76-79
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Manhas P, Angral S, Kotwal S. Outcome and pitfalls of open rhinoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 72 (01) 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Patel PN, Kandathil CK, Most SP. Outcomes of combined anterior septal reconstruction and dorsal hump reduction, Laryngoscope. 2020 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1002/lary.28611
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Pavri S, Zhu VZ, Steinbacher DM. Postoperative edema resolution following rhinoplasty: a three-dimensional morphometric assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (06) 973e-979e
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gholami M, Vaezi A. Comparison of the effects of external and internal lateral nasal osteotomies on ecchymosis, periorbital edema, and step off deformity after rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 2019; 8 (03) 345-351
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Öztürk G. Push-down technique without osteotomy: a new approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (03) 891-901
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cingi C, Eskiizmir G. Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: a prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol 2013; 38 (02) 136-141
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO. Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty?. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (01) 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Koybasi S, Bicer YO, Seyhan S, Kesgin S. Satisfaction in rhinoplasty: the possible impact of anxiety and functional outcome. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275 (03) 729-733
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RSL. Influence of age on rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (02) 248-253
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 AlHarethy S, Al-Angari SS, Syouri F, Islam T, Jang YJ. Assessment of satisfaction based on age and gender in functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (07) 2809-2812
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Alharethy S, Mousa A, Alharbi A, Aldrees T, AlQaryan S, Ju Jang Y. Does skin thickness affect satisfaction post rhinoplasty? Middle Eastern population as an example. Saudi Med J 2018; 39 (12) 1238-1241
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Bulut OC, Wallner F, Hohenberger R, Plinkert PK, Baumann I. Quality of life after primary septorhinoplasty in deviated- and non-deviated nose measured with ROE, FROI-17 and SF-36. Rhinology 2017; 55 (01) 75-80
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Çaklı 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Wähmann MS, Bulut OC, Bran GM, Veit JA, Riedel F. Systematic review of quality-of-life measurement after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42 (06) 1635-1647
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Balikci HH, Gurdal MM. Satisfaction outcomes in open functional septorhinoplasty: prospective analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (02) 377-379
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Cassotta G. et al. Rhinoplasty in elderly patients: analysis of outcomes and patient's satisfaction following 20 years experiences. Eur J Plast Surg 2018; 41 (04) 395-400
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Başer E, Kocagöz GD, Çalim ÖF, Verim A, Yilmaz F, Özturan O. Assessment of patient satisfaction with evaluation methods in open technique septorhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27 (02) 420-424
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Biggs TC, Fraser LR, Ward MJ, Sunkaraneni VS, Harries PG, Salib RJ. Patient reported outcome measures in septorhinoplasty surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015; 97 (01) 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Çağıcı CA. Evaluation of postoperative patient satisfaction after covering the nasal dorsum with upper lateral cartilage: “upper lateral closing”. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2019; 85 (01) 71-77
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Sena Esteves S, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Carvalho Almeida J, Abrunhosa J, Almeida E Sousa C. Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2017; 83 (05) 552-557
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC. et al. Avaliação tardia em rinoplastia estética em um centro acadêmico de referência. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2010; 76 (04) 437-441
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Fuller JC, Levesque PA, Lindsay RW. Analysis of patient-perceived nasal appearance evaluations following functional septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (04) 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Jeong JY, Ha Y, Kim S, Yang HJ, Oh S-H. Availability and safety of osteotomy in esthetic rhinoplasty of East Asian patients. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 81 (02) 141-145
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Khan TZ, Mehfooz S, Ahmed Z, Aftab AA, Nizami ZA, Akhter S. Cosmetic satisfaction in patients undergone septorhinoplasty. J Med Sci 2019; •••: 5
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Çerçi Özkan A, Kozanoğlu E. Comparison of patient satisfaction between composite and dorsum augmentation-only nasal reconstructions with diced cartilage graft wrapped in fascia. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (05) 1579-1583
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Parrilla C, Salvati A, Mastrapasqua RF, Artuso A, Paludetti G, Galli J. Functional and aesthetic results after septorhinoplasty and concomitant radiofrequency of the inferior turbinate: is there a role for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 276 (03) 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Patel PN, Abdelwahab M, Most SP. A review and modification of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty techniques. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2020; 22 (02) 71-79
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Saedi B, Amali A, Gharavis V, Yekta BG, Most SP. Spreader flaps do not change early functional outcomes in reduction rhinoplasty: a randomized control trial. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2014; 28 (01) 70-74
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Schwitzer JA, Albino FP, Mathis RK, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB. Assessing demographic differences in patient-perceived improvement in facial appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (07) 784-793
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Soni K, Patro SK, Aneja J, Kaushal D, Goyal A, Shakrawal N. Post-rhinoplasty outcomes in an Indian population assessed using the FACE-Q appraisal scales: a prospective observational study. J Laryngol Otol 2020; 134 (03) 247-251
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Troedhan A. Piezotome rhinoplasty reduces postsurgical morbidity and enhances patient satisfaction: a multidisciplinary clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 74 (08) 1659.e1-1659.e11
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Tuncel U, Aydogdu O. The probable reasons of dorsal hump problems following let-down / push-down rhinoplasty and solution proposals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (03) 378e-385e
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar