Satisfaction in rhinoplasty: the possible impact of anxiety and functional outcome

Koybasi, Serap; Biçer, Yusuf; Seyhan, Sinan; Kesgin, Selcan

doi:10.1007/s00405-017-4860-9

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 Despite these findings, Koybasi et al found that preoperative anxiety has no influence on patients' satisfaction after rhinoplasty. 22 Arima et al 23 demonstrated that individuals younger than 30 years had significantly worse satisfaction following rhinoplasty than those aged 30 to 50 years. Despite these factors, AlHarethy et al 24 demonstrated that age and gender do not influence an individual's satisfaction following rhinoplasty.…”

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

“…Rhinoplasty (RP) is among the most commonly performed surgeries for both aesthetic and functional purposes (1). Most studies of RP have focused on the surgical technique, level of surgeon experience, development of complications, and revision rate (2,3) However, an assessment of RP from the patient’s perspective, in terms of satisfaction and quality of life, is equally important because these are the predominant factors indicating the success of RP, as well as its ultimate purpose (4,5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application

Çelik¹,

Altıntaş²

2019

Balkan Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:An assessment of rhinoplasty from the patient’s perspective, in terms of satisfaction and quality of life, is quite important because these are the predominant factors indicating the success of rhinoplasty.Aims:To translate the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation into Turkish and then validate the new version for use in Turkish patients.Study Design:Validation study.Methods:We enrolled 30 participants who were able to read and write Turkish and underwent primary rhinoplasty. The control group consisted of 58 healthy volunteers with no need for aesthetic or functional nasal surgery. The reliability of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T was analyzed according to its internal consistency and test-retest reproducibility. Discriminant validity was calculated by comparing the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores between the patient and control groups. Responsiveness and sensitivity to changes in rhinoplasty outcomes were analyzed by comparing the patients’ pre- and postoperative Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T scores.Results:The scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were significantly lower in the patient group than in the control group (all p<0.05). In the patient group, the scores for questions 1-6 of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T, as well as the total scores, were higher postoperatively than preoperatively (all p<0.05). The scores for each Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T question, as well as the total scores, did not differ significantly with respect to test-retest reproducibility (all p>0.05). The internal consistency of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T was high, as evidenced by Cronbach’s α values of 0.887 preoperatively and 0.798 postoperatively.Conclusion:The Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation-T constitutes a validated instrument with which to measure rhinoplasty outcomes among Turkish patients.

show abstract

“…Within the constraints of the database, we were unable to determine the indication for cartilage grafting, and this variable could represent a wide variety of tip strut, onlay, alar, dorsal, or spreader grafts. However, prior studies have shown similar results, with patient reported outcome measures improving if the rhinoplasty procedure contained functional components or resulted in aesthetically pleasing nasal architecture 10‐12 . For example, Koybasi et al showed that nasal functional improvement as determined by the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluate scale leads to improved patient satisfaction, and Neaman et al demonstrated that addressing preoperative tip deformities reduces revision rhinoplasty rates 12,13 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, prior studies have shown similar results, with patient reported outcome measures improving if the rhinoplasty procedure contained functional components or resulted in aesthetically pleasing nasal architecture [10][11][12]. For example, Koybasi et al showed that nasal functional improvement as determined by the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluate scale leads to improved patient satisfaction, and Neaman…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: The impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention

Crawford

Lee

Panuganti

et al. 2020

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A subset of patients who require revision rhinoplasty will change surgeons for their second procedure. We sought to investigate the rate of surgeon change and identify associated predictors using a population-based, ambulatory surgery database. Methods/study design: In this retrospective review, 9172 rhinoplasty procedures over a 5-year period were analyzed using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (SASD). We identified 380 patients who had at least two rhinoplasty procedures between 2009 and 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of patients changing surgeons for their second documented rhinoplasty. Results: Among the 380/8531 (4.4%) patients who underwent a revision rhinoplasty, 117/380 (30.8%) patients changed surgeons for their subsequent procedure within a 5-year period. Multivariable logistic regression identified a lower likelihood of surgeon change in patients undergoing functional or cosmetic cartilage grafting procedures (OR 0.342, 95%CI 0.155-0.714, P = .006) and in patients who self-paid for their procedure (OR 0.476, 95%CI 0.225-0.984, P = .048). One hundred twenty-four patients underwent a cosmetic revision rhinoplasty and were twice as likely to change surgeons as those who underwent functional revision rhinoplasty (OR 2.042 95%CI 1.046-4.050, P = .038). Time elapsed (>2 years) was positively correlated with likelihood of surgeon change (OR 1.236, 95%CI 1.153-1.333, P < .001). Conclusion: In our analysis, 30.8% of patients changed surgeons for their revision rhinoplasty. Cartilage grafting at the time of index procedure and cash payment correlated with a decreased likelihood of surgeon change. Patients were more likely to change surgeons with increased time elapsed or for an aesthetic revision. Clarifying features associated with surgeon change may help improve patient satisfaction and retention.

show abstract

Satisfaction in rhinoplasty: the possible impact of anxiety and functional outcome

Cited by 20 publications

References 15 publications

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application

Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: The impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About