WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Mon, Dec 23, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 13, Issue 2 (2024)
WJPS 2024, 13(2): 58-67 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Razmara F, Ghorani N S, Dehghani N, Mahmoudi X. Satisfaction Level of Patients with the Outcome of Genioplasty. WJPS 2024; 13 (2) :58-67
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1269-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-1269-en.html
1- 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Private office, Tehran, Iran
3- 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2- Private office, Tehran, Iran
3- 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract: (1240 Views)
Background: We aimed to assess the satisfaction level of patients with the outcome of genioplasty and the influential parameters in this respect.
Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 70 patients between 18 to 59 years, who underwent genioplasty in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at Shariati and Sina Hospitals, Tehran, Iran, between 2010 and 2020. Patient records were evaluated and a questionnaire was filled out over the phone to assess the influential parameters on the satisfaction level of patients with the outcome of genioplasty. Data were analyzed by PASS 11 (alpha=0.1).
Results: Seventy patients were evaluated including 56 (80%) females and 14 (20%) males. Forty patients (52.6%) had no complaint with regard to the outcome of genioplasty. Postoperative chin deviation (not correcting the initial complaint) (10.52%), postoperative pain in the chin area (10.52%), and lower lip paresthesia (9.21%) were the most common patient complaints. The minimum and maximum satisfaction scores were 22 and 80, respectively. Number of follow-up sessions had a significant effect on satisfaction with the outcome of genioplasty (P=0.076). Patients who underwent advancement genioplasty alone had the highest level of long-term satisfaction with the outcome while those who underwent setback genioplasty alone had the lowest level of long-term satisfaction.
Conclusion: Advancement genioplasty had the highest rate of patient satisfaction, and chin asymmetry in the frontal view was the most common patient complaint after genioplasty.
Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 70 patients between 18 to 59 years, who underwent genioplasty in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department at Shariati and Sina Hospitals, Tehran, Iran, between 2010 and 2020. Patient records were evaluated and a questionnaire was filled out over the phone to assess the influential parameters on the satisfaction level of patients with the outcome of genioplasty. Data were analyzed by PASS 11 (alpha=0.1).
Results: Seventy patients were evaluated including 56 (80%) females and 14 (20%) males. Forty patients (52.6%) had no complaint with regard to the outcome of genioplasty. Postoperative chin deviation (not correcting the initial complaint) (10.52%), postoperative pain in the chin area (10.52%), and lower lip paresthesia (9.21%) were the most common patient complaints. The minimum and maximum satisfaction scores were 22 and 80, respectively. Number of follow-up sessions had a significant effect on satisfaction with the outcome of genioplasty (P=0.076). Patients who underwent advancement genioplasty alone had the highest level of long-term satisfaction with the outcome while those who underwent setback genioplasty alone had the lowest level of long-term satisfaction.
Conclusion: Advancement genioplasty had the highest rate of patient satisfaction, and chin asymmetry in the frontal view was the most common patient complaint after genioplasty.
Keywords: Genioplasty, Chin, Facial Asymmetry, Paresthesia, Patient Satisfaction, Orthognathic Surgery
References
1. Gibson FB, Calhoun KH. Chin position in profile analysis. Comparison of techniques and introduction of the lower facial triangle. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992;118:273-6.
doi: 10.1001/archotol. 1992.01880030057013.
2- Deshpande SN, Munoli AV. Osseous genioplasty: A case series. Indian J Plast Surg 2011;44:414-21. doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.90811.
3- Singh S, Mehrotra D, Mohammad S. Profile changes after conventional and chin shield genioplasty. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2014;4:70-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2014.08.005.
4- Keyhan SO, Cheshmi B, Fallahi HR, Asayesh MA, Fattahi T. Balcony genioplasty: a novel technique for better esthetic results in patients with deep mentolabial fold. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;41:7. doi: 10.1186/s40902-019-0190-8.
5- Raymond J. Fonseca D. Oral and maxillofacial surgery (Fonseca). 3rd ed. china: Elsevier 2018;97-104.
6- El Khatib A, Saba S. Alloplastic Augmentation of the Chin. In: Anh Tran T, ed. Operative Dictations in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Springer, Cham. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40631-2_15
7- Mrunalini R, Elavenil Pa, FDS RCPS. Genioplasty in Contemporary Orthognathic Surgery. Global Perspective in Contemporary Orthognathic Surgery, An Issue of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America, E-Book 2022;35:97. Doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2022.06.009
8- Jones BM, Vesely MJ. Osseous genioplasty in facial aesthetic surgery--a personal perspective reviewing 54 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59:1177-87. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.04.011.
9- Lee SW, Ahn SH, Myung Y. Secondary Genioplasties for the Treatment of Chin Deformities After Orthognathic Surgery in Asian Women: Defining the Aesthetic Importance of Managing the Chin Shape in Orthognathic Surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2016;76:301-5. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000482.
10- Harris WC, Raggio BS. Facial Chin Augmentation. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554506
11- Bertossi D, Galzignato PF, Albanese M, Botti C, Botti G, Nocini PF. Chin Microgenia: A Clinical Comparative Study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015;39:651-8. doi: 10.1007/s00266-015-0518-4.
12- Eslamipour F, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Le BT, Shahmoradi M. A Retrospective Analysis of Dentofacial Deformities and Orthognathic Surgeries. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2017;7:73-77. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_104_16.
13- Anquetil M, Perrin JP, Praud M, Mercier J, Corre P, Bertin H. Vertical lengthening genioplasty: A new osteotomy technique. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;121:159-162.
doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2019.09.008.
14- Avelar RL, Sá CD, Esses DF, Becker OE, Soares EC, de Oliveira RB. Unusual complication after genioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:e180-2. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000618.
15- Richard O, Ferrara JJ, Cheynet F, Guyot L, Thiery G, Blanc JL. Complications des génioplasties [Complications of genioplasty]. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 2001;102:34-9. PMID: 11345622.
16- Eppley BL. Chin Reshaping in Profileplasty: Augmentative and Reductive Strategies. Facial Plast Surg 2019;35:499-515. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1695750.
17- Pachêco-Pereira C, Abreu LG, Dick BD, De Luca Canto G, Paiva SM, Flores-Mir C. Patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2016;86:495-508. doi: 10.2319/040615-227.1.
18- Kufta K, Peacock ZS, Chuang SK, Inverso G, Levin LM. Components of Patient Satisfaction After Orthognathic Surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:e102-5. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002318.
19- Schwitzer JA, Albino FP, Mathis RK, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB. Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Orthognathic Surgery and Osseous Genioplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2015;26:2293-8. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001983.
20- Aloosi S, Amin Z, Muhamed H. Quality of life assessment in orthognathic surgery patients with dentofacial deformity. J Craniomaxillofac Res 2020;7:26-33.
21- FACE-Q | Aesthetics. A Guide for Researchers and Clinicians. USER’S GUIDE VERSION 1.0 January 2015 pp:11. Available from: https://www.mskcc.org/sites/default/files/node/174457/documents/face-q-aesthetics-user-guide.pdf
22- Hunsinger V, Quilichini J, Noel W, Obadia D, Leyder P. Morphological evaluation of genioplasty associated with orthognathic surgery. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2014;59:232-9. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2013.05.001.
23- Bertossi D, Albanese M, Turra M, Favero V, Nocini P, Lucchese A. Combined rhinoplasty and genioplasty: long-term follow-up. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013;15:192-7. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2013.759.
24- Chan D, Ducic Y. A Simplified, Reliable Approach for Advancement Genioplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016;18:114-8. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1818.
25- Japatti SR, Chourasia N, Siddegowda CY, Shriram P, Yajurvedi R, Beawerwala T. Sagittal Genioplasty: New Techniques. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020;19(4):638-641. doi: 10.1007/s12663-019-01313-x.
26- Kim YK, Kim SG, Kim JH. Altered sensation after orthognathic surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:893-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.10.025.
27- Chang EW, Lam SM, Karen M, Donlevy JL. Sliding genioplasty for correction of chin abnormalities. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3:8-15. PMID: 11176712.
28- Khalifa GA, Mohamed FI. Aesthetic outcomes and morphological changes in chin parameters after mandibular distraction and subsequent advancement genioplasty in patients with mandibular micrognathia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:1572-1580. sdoi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.06.014. [DOI:10.18502/jcr.v7i1.4013]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
