Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33(03): 324-328
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601419
Rapid Communication
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA

Preoperative Simulation in Planning Rhinoplasty: Evaluation from Patients' and Surgeons' Perspectives

İbrahim Alper Aksakal
1   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Gebze Medical Park Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey
,
Musa Kemal Keles
2   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Education Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
,
Murat Sinan Engin
3   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
,
İlhami Oğuzhan Aydoğdu
4   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Samsun Medicana Hospital, Samsun, Turkey
,
İsmail Küçüker
3   Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 June 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Among aesthetic surgery procedures, rhinoplasty is one of the most common. Preoperative simulations have become increasingly commonplace through the recent years along with a controversy regarding their use. Although capable of building a solid rapport between the surgeon and the patient by visualizing the end result, it can also prove to be a liability for a surgeon who is not confident about delivering the result which has been put on screen. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outlook of the surgeons and patients on preoperative simulations. Plastic surgeons who perform rhinoplasty and individuals who consider rhinoplasty were surveyed via an online questionnaire system. Their opinions about the practice of simulation were questioned and they were asked to distinguish between simulated and actual postoperative results. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software. Major factors influencing the decision-making process of patients were the availability of preoperative simulation, being shown appealing results of the surgeon's previous work and a personal reference from a patient with an appealing result. Within the health care professionals, it has been observed that experienced surgeons are more confident about using simulations, while inexperienced ones are daunted by being bound with a visual contract (p < 0.05). However, it has been noted that the preference of withholding the simulation or providing a copy to the patient was similar in all experience levels (p > 0.05). In conclusion, our findings suggest that the patients' self-consciousness regarding preoperative simulations seem to grow faster than the surgeons' confidence in their use. Level of evidence is Level V.

Keywords

simulation - rhinoplasty - preoperative
 

  • References

  • 1 Nguyen PS, Mazzola RF. History of aesthetic rhinoplasty [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2014; 59 (06) 374-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a social media analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (01) NP1-NP5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kiranantawat K, Nguyen AH. Asian rhinoplasty: preoperative simulation and planning using Adobe Photoshop. Semin Plast Surg 2015; 29 (04) 232-246
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moscatiello F, Herrero Jover J, González Ballester MA, Carreño Hernández E, Piombino P, Califano L. Preoperative digital three-dimensional planning for rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34 (02) 232-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vuyk HD, Stroomer J, Vinayak B. The role of computer imaging in facial plastic surgery consultation: a clinical study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998; 23 (03) 235-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 75 (03) 328-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Farkas LG, Kolar JC. Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women's faces. Clin Plast Surg 1987; 14 (04) 599-616
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Gonzalez-Ulloa M. Quantitative principles in cosmetic surgery of the face (profileplasty). Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull 1962; 29: 186-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mühlbauer W, Holm C. Computer imaging and surgical reality in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (07) 2098-2104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Papel ID, Park RI. Computer imaging for instruction in facial plastic surgery in a residency program. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114 (12) 1454-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sharp HR, Tingay RS, Coman S, Mills V, Roberts DN. Computer imaging and patient satisfaction in rhinoplasty surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116 (12) 1009-1013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chávez AE, Dagum P, Koch RJ, Newman JP. Legal issues of computer imaging in plastic surgery: a primer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (06) 1601-1608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mohammadshahi M, Pourreza A, Orojlo PH, Mahmoodi M, Akbari F. Erratum to: rhinoplasty as a medicalized phenomenon: a 25-center survey on quality of life before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (01) 176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Malone M, Pearlman S. Dorsal augmentation in rhinoplasty: a survey and review. Facial Plast Surg 2015; 31 (03) 289-294
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar