Volume 12, Issue 1 (2023)                   WJPS 2023, 12(1): 12-19 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Loghmani S, Loghmani A, Loghmani S, Zarei M, Maraki F. Lessons from Self-Assessment of Post-Rhinoplasty Complaints; Analysis of 192 Candidates of Secondary Rhinoplasty. WJPS 2023; 12 (1) :12-19
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1022-en.html
1- 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Ordibehesht Surgical Center, Isfahan, Iran.
2- 2. Department of Dentistry. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
3- 3. Department of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
4- 4. Autoimmune Diseases Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
5- 5. Department of Operating Room, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran , Fmaraki1373@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1423 Views)
Background: Rhinoplasty as the most common aesthetic surgical operations aims to correct deformities of the different structures of the nose with each case its own challenges. We aimed to highlight the importance of self-assessment for rhino surgeons.
Methods: This retrospective descriptive study was done on 192 patients in Ordibehesht Hospital, Isfahan, Iran from April 2017 to Jun 2021. candidate for secondary rhinoplasty, with mandatory aesthetic and optional functional purposes, having previously undergone rhinoplasty with the same or another surgeon. Patients with initial rhinoplasty by the first author were assigned to group 1 (n=102) and the patients who were operated by the other surgeons were in the group 2 (n=90). Data were collected using an author made checklist divided into three parts: overall demographic questions, questions about the patients’ aesthetic and functional complaints and objective evaluation by the surgeon.
Results: The most frequent reported complaints led to their current rhinoplasty were about the nasal tip with 161 cases (83.9%), upper nasal part with 98 cases (51%) and mid-nose (middle nose) with 81 cases (42.2%). Besides, respiratory problem was observed in 58 patients (30.2%). Surgeon's skill was significantly associated with occurrence of these two complaints; so that these two complaints were more common in group2 than group1 (P value <0.05).
Conclusion: Such assessments resulted to improve the surgical outcomes due to finding the more prevalent problems in own patients than the other surgeons’ patients and determining the reasons that leads to change the techniques with regard to the researches and consulting with the colleagues.
Full-Text [PDF 237 kb]   (1280 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Special
ePublished: 2023/02/25

1. Gubisch W, Dacho A. Aesthetic rhinoplasty plus brow, eyelid and conchal surgery: pitfalls-complications-prevention. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;12:Doc 07.
2. Moolenburgh SE, Mureau MA, Hofer SO. Aesthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction: patient versus panel perception. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008;61:1459-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.09.018]
3. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Lopes AS, Brandão KV, Sousa LB, Suguri VM, Gregório LC. Validation of the rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Qual Life Res 2014;23:953-8. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-013-0539-x]
4. Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I. Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:2569-73. [DOI:10.1007/s00405-016-3920-x]
5. Rosa F, Lohuis PJFM, Almeida J, Santos M, Oliveira J, Sousa CAE, Ferreira M. The Portuguese version of "The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty": validation and clinical application. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;85:170-175. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.11.007]
6. 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:e1404. [DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001404]
7. Datema FR, van Zijl FV, van der Poel EF, de Jong B, Robert J, Lohuis PJ. Transparency in functional rhinoplasty: benefits of routine prospective outcome measurements in a tertiary referral center. Plast. Reconst. Surg 2017; 140:691-702. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003701]
8. Pandya KB, Mandal MM, Panchal AK, Kumar R, Kapadia PB, Wadia M, Valiya V, Parmar N. Comparative study of outcomes of conventional and endoscopic septoplasty. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021; 7:1325-29. [DOI:10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20212901]
9. Bouaoud J, Loustau M, Belloc JB. Functional and aesthetic factors associated with revision of rhinoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg Glob Open 2018; 6:1-7. [DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001884]
10. Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC, et al. Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 76:437-441. [DOI:10.1590/S1808-86942010000400006]
11. Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH, et al. Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:31-37. [DOI:10.1177/1090820X12469221]
12. Loghmani S, Loghmani A, Maraki F. Secondary Rhinoplasty: Aesthetic and Functional Concerns. Plast Surg 2019;27:217-22. [DOI:10.1177/2292550319828799]
13. Goudakos JK, Daskalakis D, Patel K. Revision Rhinoplasty: Retrospective Chart Review Analysis of Deformities and Surgical Maneuvers in Patients with Nasal Airway Obstruction-Five Years of Experience. Facial Plast Surg 2017;33:334-338. [DOI:10.1055/s-0037-1598041]
14. Nassab R, Matti B: Presenting concerns and surgical management of secondary rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2015;35:137-44. [DOI:10.1093/asj/sju026]
15. Vian HN, Berger CA, Barra DC, Perin AP. Revision rhinoplasty: physician-patient aesthetic and functional evaluation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2018;84:736-43. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.08.011]
16. Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B. Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: A guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132: 769-776. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a01457]
17. Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ. Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010;12:291-297. [DOI:10.1001/archfaci.2010.62]
18. Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, et al. Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: Analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31:775-780. [DOI:10.1177/1090820X11417427]
19. Esteves SS, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Almeida JC, Abrunhosa J. Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2017;83:552-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.06.010]
20. Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, Adamson PA. Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31:775-80. [DOI:10.1177/1090820X11417427]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | World Journal of Plastic Surgery

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb