Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A national survey of functional septorhinoplasty surgery performed in the United Kingdom: a clinician end-user questionnaire to assess current practice and help inform future practice

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this national survey is to assess the current practice of functional septorhinoplasty (SRP) surgery in the UK and better inform future practice.

Methods

An ENT-UK approved questionnaire was sent out to all 135 consultant members of the British Society of Facial Plastic Surgery (BSFPS). Data was collected on numbers of functional SRPs performed on the NHS, use of outcome measures, psychology and photography support, antibiotic use, referral base and consenting practice.

Results

The response rate was 38.5%, with 52 out of 135 completed. The median number of annual SRP cases per surgeon was 40. Most surgeons (95%) used clinical photography as an outcome measure. However, 27% of the respondents use a subjective outcome measurement and 3% of them use an objective outcome measurement. Only 34% had access to psychology support and 60% receive their referrals from primary care. All surgeons counsel patients for aesthetic change, 15% mention CSF leak and 38% mention olfactory disturbance. The key comment from our respondents was to relabel the rhinoplasty procedure as a functional SRP procedure with the aim to remove it from the Procedures of Limited Clinical Value (PoLCV) list.

Conclusion

The majority of our respondents perform a large proportion of the SRP surgeries in the UK with each of the respondents performing an average of 40 SRP surgeries per year. There is a need to recatergorise functional septorhinoplasty as a functional operation and recommend functional SRP surgery to be removed from the PoLCV list.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Getting it right first time. In: https://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/. Accessed 05 Sep 2019

  2. Audit commission. Reducing spending on low clinical value treatments. In: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150423184111, http://archive.audit-commission.gov.uk/auditcommission/subwebs/publications/studies/studyPDF/3683.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2019

  3. van Egmond MMHT, Rovers MM, Hannink G, Hendriks CTM, van Heerbeek N (2019) Septoplasty with/without concurrent turbinate surgery versus non-surgical management for nasal obstruction in adults with a deviated septum: a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394:314–321 (Epub ahead of print)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel B, Virk JS, Randhawa PS, Andrews PJ (2018) The internal nasal valve: a validated grading system and operative guide. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(11):2739–2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5142-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Poirrier A, Ahluwalia S, Kwame I, Hannan S, Bentley M, Andrews P (2014) External nasal valve collapse: surgical techniques and outcome measurement. Rhinology 52(2):127–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Andrews PJ, Choudhury N, Takhar A, Poirrier AL, Jacques T, Randhawa PS (2015) The need for an objective measure in septorhinoplasty surgery: are we any closer to finding an answer? Clin Otolaryngol 40(6):698–703

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerecci D, Casanueva FJ, Mace JC, Annen A, Barrett DM, Kim MM, Wang TD, Smith TL, Loyo M (2019) Nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) score outcomes after septorhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 129(4):841–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Takhar A, Stephens J, Randhawa P, Poirrier AL, Andrews P (2014) Rethinking sino-nasal outcome: validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-23 in septorhinoplasty. Rhinology 52(4):320–326

    Google Scholar 

  9. Menger DJ, Richard W, Smart KM, Grolman W (2015) Does functional septorhinoplasty provide improvement of the nasal passage in validated patient-reported outcome measures? ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 77(3):123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ansari E, Rogister F, Lefebvre P, Tombu S, Poirrier AL (2019) Responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to septorhinoplasty by comparison with rhinomanometry and subjective instruments. Clin Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.13394(Epub)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rhee JS, Sullivan CD, Frank DO, Kimbell JS, Garcia GJ (2014) A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 16(3):219–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fuller JC, Levesque PA, Lindsay RW (2017) Assessment of the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire for detection of clinically significant global health-related quality-of-life improvement following functional septorhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19(2):95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bulut OC, Wallner F, Oladokun D, Kayser C, Plath M, Schulz E, Plinkert PK, Baumann I (2018) Long-term quality of life changes after primary septorhinoplasty. Qual Life Res 27(4):987–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Poirrier AL, Ahluwalia S, Goodson A, Ellis M, Bentley M, Andrews P (2013) Is the sino-nasal outcome test-22 a suitable evaluation for septorhinoplasty? Laryngoscope 123(1):76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ross EE, Anari S (2018) Clinical commissioning group criteria for rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty in England: survey of current guidance. J Laryngol Otol 132(7):591–595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. IMI National Guidelines. A guide to good practice: rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty (2019). In: https://www.imi.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/2019_Mar_IMINatGuidelines_Rhinoplasty_V2x-1.pdf. Accessed 21 Jul 2019

  17. Andrews P, Joseph J, Li CH, Nip L, Jacques T, Leung T (2017) A UK survey of current ENT practice in the assessment of nasal patency. J Laryngol Otol 131(8):702–706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Murrell G (2013) Components of the nasal examination. Aesthet Surg J 33:38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Joseph J, Randhawa P, Hannan SA, Long J, Goh S, O’Shea N, Saleh H, Hansen E, Veale D, Andrews P (2017) Body dysmorphic disorder in patients undergoing septorhinoplasty surgery: should we be performing routine screening? Clin Otolaryngol 42(3):508–513

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Randhawa PS, Watson N, Lechner M, Ritchie L, Choudhury N, Andrews PJ (2016) The outcome of septorhinoplasty surgery on olfactory function. Clin Otolaryngol 41(1):15–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Youssef A, Ahmed S, Ibrahim AA, Daniel M, Abdelfattah HM, Morsi H (2018) Traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage following septorhinoplasty. Arch Plast Surg 45(4):379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Reid E (2015) Montogomery v lanarkshire health board and the rights of the reasonable patient. Edinburgh Law Rev 19(3):360–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rohrich RJ (2001) Mirror, mirror on the wall: when the postoperative reflection does not meet patients’ expectations. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:507–509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, Noseworthy T, Beck CA, Dixon E et al (2015) Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:15–32

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, The Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital, 330 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8DA, UK

    Samit Unadkat, Alfonso Luca Pendolino, Premjit Randhawa & Peter Andrews

  2. University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK

    Anil Joshi & Alwyn D’Souza

  3. Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK

    Rajiv Bhalla & Timothy Woolford

  4. Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK

    Hesham Saleh

  5. Ear Institute, UCL, London, UK

    Peter Andrews

Authors
  1. Samit Unadkat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfonso Luca Pendolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anil Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rajiv Bhalla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy Woolford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alwyn D’Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Premjit Randhawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hesham Saleh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peter Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samit Unadkat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that we have no conflict of interests.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

There was no patient identifiable information in our study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Unadkat, S., Pendolino, A.L., Joshi, A. et al. A national survey of functional septorhinoplasty surgery performed in the United Kingdom: a clinician end-user questionnaire to assess current practice and help inform future practice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 475–482 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05722-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05722-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation