Systematic Review of Quality-of-Life Measurement After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

Wähmann, Matthias; Bulut, Olcay Cem; Bran, Gregor; Veit, J.; Riedel, Frank

doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1199-6

Cited by 42 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, it is important to consider the inherent methodological limitations associated with included patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life studies in general. 28 Such limitations include patients opting not to respond to satisfaction questionnaires as well as the possibility that those who were not satisfied following rhinoplasty chose not to participate in postoperative satisfaction and quality of life assessment. Hence, the conclusion in this review that the majority of patients regardless of rhinoplasty technique are satisfied following rhinoplasty may be generally positively biased.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of plastic surgery on non-functional conditions is more indirect and, therefore, more difficult to quantify. Numerous studies show that esthetic plastic surgery improves QoL (or reduces suffering in our terminology) [ 33 ], although there is little evidence of long-term effects on psychosocial functioning and QoL and, by extension, the true benefit of the treatment [ 33 – 35 ]. Therefore, it remains unclear whether non-functional conditions related to appearance are best treated with plastic surgery or some other health intervention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic review of physical and psychosocial outcomes after aesthetic surgery indicated that most patients undergoing aesthetic surgery have a lower pre-operative QoL (or greater suffering in our terminology) relative to controls, and that the procedure leads to a significant improvement that plateaus over time [ 34 ]. Similarly, another systematic review specifically focused on aesthetic rhinoplasty showed that studies suggest an improvement in QoL after the operation [ 35 ]. Nevertheless, these studies had methodological shortcomings, such as measurement imprecisions, variability in procedures and outcomes, and heterogenic and small study populations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An ethics analysis of the rationale for publicly funded plastic surgery

Sandman

Hansson

2020

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Healthcare systems are increasingly struggling with resource constraints, given demographic changes, technological development, and citizen expectations. The aim of this article is to normatively analyze different suggestions regarding how publicly financed plastic surgery should be delineated in order to identify a well-considered, normative rationale. The scope of the article is to discuss general principles and not define specific conditions or domains of plastic surgery that should be treated within the publicly financed system. Methods This analysis uses a reflective equilibrium approach, according to which considered normative judgements in one area should be logically and argumentatively coherent with considered normative judgements and background theories at large within a system. Results and conclusions In exploring functional versus non-function conditions, we argue that it is difficult to find a principled reason for an absolute priority of functional conditions over non-functional conditions. Nevertheless, functional conditions are relatively easier to establish objectively, and surgical intervention has a clear causal effect on treating a functional condition. Considering non-functional conditions that require plastic surgery [i.e., those related to appearance or symptomatic conditions (not affecting function)], we argue that the patient needs to experience some degree of suffering (and not only a preference for plastic surgery), which must be ‘validated’ in some form by the healthcare system. This validation is required for both functional and non-functional conditions. Functional conditions are validated by distinguishing between statistically normal and abnormal functioning. Similarly, for non-functional conditions, statistical normality represents a potential method for distinguishing between what should and should not be publicly funded. However, we acknowledge that such a concept requires further development.

show abstract

“…For this purpose, the focus is increasingly placed on the development of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that centre on the perception of a disease and its treatment by the patients. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that are used to measure and assess data of PROs and since 2011 they have given rise to many publications [126].…”

Section: Patient Reported Outcomes (Pros)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For development, evaluation, implementation, and reporting of PROMs, multiple manuals and publications are available. But this also means that the changes in the quality of life are not always optimally reflected in PROMs because often the trials do not have a cohort, are not prospective, and cover only a short follow-up period [126,[132][133][134].…”

Section: Patient Reported Outcomes (Pros)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied?

Dacho

2020

Laryngo-Rhino-Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusAmmenfAssungIn kaum einem anderen Bereich ist das Ergebnis so offensichtlich, wie bei der plastisch-ästhetischen Nasenchirurgie. Umsomehr spielen sowohl die Qualität des Eingriffs und im Bereich der Ästhetik die Qualität des Ergebnisses eine herausragende Rolle. Hierbei sind die Erwartungen und der Anspruch des Operateurs nicht immer deckungsgleich mit der des Patienten. Des Weiteren haben Kostenträger, im Falle von Kombinationsoperationen, einen eigenen Fokus zum Thema Qualität, der häufig mit Wirtschaftlichkeit verwechselt wird. Objektive Kriterien spielen für den Arzt eine wesentliche Rolle, wobei für die Patienten sehr häufig weiche Kriterien von wesentlicher Bedeutung sind. Dies ist umso diffiziler, da Schönheit im Auge des Betrachters liegt und mit funktionellen Kriterien, wie Atmung und Riechen vereinbar sein müssen. In der Vielzahl von Qualitätskriterien fällt es dem Laien schwer die richtige Arztwahl zu treffen, insbesondere angesichts unzähliger Siegel, Zertifkate und des Einflusses des Internets bzw. von Social Media. Aber auch der Chirurg muss aus einer Vielzahl von Kongressen, Kursen und Symposien herausfinden, welche dieser Veranstaltungen eine bestimmte Mindestqualität garantiert. Trotz einer enormen Veränderung und Verfeinerung der rhinochirurgischen OP-Techniken im Rahmen der letzten Jahrzehnte, wird die Ergebnisqualität seitens der Patienten konstant vor die Prozedurqualität gestellt. Dieses Referat versucht eine Standortbestimmung möglichst objektivierbarer Qualitätsindikatoren in Kombination mit unterschiedlichen Anforderungen und Standpunkten zum Thema Qualität -aus Sicht des Arztes, des Patienten und des Kostenträgers -zu beleuchten und diese im Spiegel sich verändernder OP-Techniken der plastisch-ästhetischen Nasenchirurgie zu betrachten. AbstrActIn hardly any other field outcome is more obvious as in plasticaesthetic nasal surgery. Both the quality of the procedure and the quality of the result play an outstanding role in the arena of aesthetics. Expectations and interests of the surgeon are not always congruent with those of the patient. Furthermore, payers, in the case of combination surgery, have their own focus on quality, which is often confused with economy. Objective criteria play an essential role for the physician, with soft criteria being very important for patients. This is much more difficult because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and must be compatible with functional conditions such as breathing and smelling. In the variety of quality standards, it is difficult to make the right choice of surgeon for the non-professional, especially in the face of countless seals, certificates and the influence of the internet and social media. But even the surgeon has to ascertain a minimum level of quality from a large number of congresses, courses, and symposia. Despite a tremendous change and refinement of the rhinosurgical techniques over the past decades, quality of the outcome is constantly being prioritized for process quality by the patients. This paper attempts to define mo...

show abstract

Systematic Review of Quality-of-Life Measurement After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

Abstract: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cited by 42 publications

References 73 publications

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

An ethics analysis of the rationale for publicly funded plastic surgery

Welche Qualität macht den Unterschied?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About