Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2024; 40(05): 591-597
DOI: 10.1055/a-2369-7091
Original Article

An Audit of Outcomes in Cosmetic Rhinoplasty with the Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation Protocol

Munish Shandilya
1   Department of Otolaryngology, UPMC Whitfield Clinic, Waterford, Ireland
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Bon Secours Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
3   Department of Otolaryngology, Blackrock Clinic, County Dublin, Ireland
,
Stephanie Bourke
4   Department of Adult Psychiatry, Blackrock Clinic, County Dublin, Ireland
,
Avi Shandilya
5   Psychology, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

With the high demand of rhinoplasty surgery, careful selection and management of aspirants, as well as proper assessment of outcomes after surgery, are imperative for achieving successful outcomes and learning from it. The aim of this study was to answer two important questions: (1) What is the success rate in cosmetic rhinoplasty? (2) How can we best identify candidates who would achieve good outcomes in cosmetic rhinoplasty? In this study cohort, we excluded patients with any functional concerns and confounding factors that could in any way influence patient satisfaction with a cosmetic surgery. This study is a part of the trilogy of articles on “psychology of rhinoplasty” submitted to this volume of Facial Plastic Surgery, using mandatory psychiatric evaluation (MPE) to optimize candidacy. In total, 184 patients (144 females and 40 males) aged 16 to 63 years (M = 31.09) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study (follow-up: 3–122 months; M = 70.18 months), and outcome satisfaction was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score and a 5-point Likert scale. The mean improvement between preoperative (M = 4.26) and postoperative VAS scores (M = 8.47) was 4.23. Most patients were happy or very happy (95.1%) about the surgical outcome. Patients who were very happy generally scored between 8 and 10 on the VAS (77.2%) and those who were happy generally scored between 6 and 7.9 (21.2%). Some patients, however, were neutral (3.3%) or unhappy (1.6%) about their surgical outcome, and generally scored around ≤7 on the VAS. Although the successful outcome in 95.1% patients reflects a carefully designed protocol for rhinoplasty candidacy, 4.9% patients reported poor satisfaction despite these efforts. An ever-present proportion of unhappy outcomes is a reality of this popular surgery.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - surgical outcomes - cosmetic surgery - patient satisfaction - psychological assessment

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. This is an ongoing audit of cosmetic rhinoplasty in our clinics run by the senior surgeon in Ireland. The prospectively collected data of patients presenting to four clinics in Ireland aspiring for cosmetic rhinoplasty are presented. A protocol of MPE was employed and for the purpose of this particular study only the self-payers requesting cosmetic rhinoplasty were included to evaluate satisfaction from cosmetic rhinoplasty.




Publication History

Accepted Manuscript online:
19 July 2024

Article published online:
29 August 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 ISAPS. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2021. Accessed July 24, 2024 at: https://www.isaps.org/media/vdpdanke/isaps-global-survey_2021.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Grand View Research. Rhinoplasty Market Size, Share, Trends, Growth Report 2030. Accessed January 21, 2024 at: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/rhinoplasty-market
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Domanski MC, Cavale N. Self-reported “worth it” rating of aesthetic surgery in social media. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (06) 1292-1295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC. et al. Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 76 (04) 437-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Guyuron B, Bokhari F. Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1996; 20 (02) 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khan N, Rashid M, Khan I. et al. Satisfaction in patients after rhinoplasty using the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire. Cureus 2019; 11 (07) e5283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a social media analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (01) NP1-NP5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee PB, Miano DI, Sesselmann M. et al. RealSelf social media analysis of rhinoplasty patient reviews. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (07) 2368-2374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 McKinney P, Cook JQ. A critical evaluation of 200 rhinoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 1981; 7 (05) 357-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Veale D. Outcome of cosmetic surgery and “DIY” surgery in patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychiatr Bull 2000; 24 (06) 218-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Crerand CE, Franklin ME, Sarwer DB. Body dysmorphic disorder and cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (07) 167e-180e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Crerand CE, Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C. Nonpsychiatric medical treatment of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2005; 46 (06) 549-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Crerand CE, Menard W, Phillips KA. Surgical and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures among persons with body dysmorphic disorder. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Phillips KA, Grant J, Siniscalchi J, Albertini RS. Surgical and nonpsychiatric medical treatment of patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2001; 42 (06) 504-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. Body image dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cosmetic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101 (06) 1644-1649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO. Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (06) 1596-1605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gorney M. Recognition and management of the patient unsuitable for aesthetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (06) 2268-2071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wright MR, Wright WK. A psychological study of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1975; 101 (03) 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Olley PC. Aspects of plastic surgery. Social and psychological sequelae. BMJ 1974; 3 (5926) 322-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kandathil CK, Patel PN, Spataro EA, Most SP. Examining preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty patients: a single-center study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (05) 375-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lohuis PJFM, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bagal AA, Adamson PA. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2002; 18 (04) 233-244
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bagheri SC, Khan HA, Jahangirnia A, Rad SS, Mortazavi H. An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (04) 902-909
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cvjetković N, Lustica I. Secondary rhinoplasty (analysis of failures over a 5-year period). Lijec Vjesn 1997; 119 (02) 68-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kamer FM, McQuown SA. Revision rhinoplasty. Analysis and treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114 (03) 257-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Parkes ML, Kanodia R, Machida BK. Revision rhinoplasty. An analysis of aesthetic deformities. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992; 118 (07) 695-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Thomson C, Mendelsohn M. Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2007; 36 (02) 130-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vuyk HD, Watts SJ, Vindayak B. Revision rhinoplasty: review of deformities, aetiology and treatment strategies. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000; 25 (06) 476-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ. Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12 (05) 291-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar