Skip to main content
Log in

Rhinometry: An Important Clinical Index for Evaluation of the Nose Before and After Rhinoplasty

  • Original
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Preoperative planning and postoperative outcome assessment in rhinoplasty are important. For preoperative planning, some standard relationships are defined and evaluated primarily with standard photographs, but photographs do not necessarily reflect reality. Outcome assessment, on the other hand, is mostly subjective, and again, even photographic analyses may not address real changes after rhinoplasty.

Methods

“Rhinometry” is introduced as a clinical method for preoperative evaluations and postoperative judgments, and rhinometric parameters are defined. Measurements of these parameters were performed for 300 patients before rhinoplasty and in the follow-up visits 3 months postoperatively.

Results

Preoperatively, the nasal length and tip projection for most patients were more than ideal. There was moderate reduction in nasal length (mean, 9.21 mm) and a decrease in tip projection (mean, 3.34 mm) for the majority of the patients after rhinoplasty. Reductions in nasal length, tip projection, bony base width, alar base width, and alar base width during a smile were statistically significant. Patients who underwent surgery using the closed approach had significantly more reduction in nasal length and less reduction in tip projection. All the patients were satisfied with these pre- and postoperative data. Rhinometry changed the ideas of the authors about some changes that their operative approaches produce.

Conclusions

Rhinometry can change the ideas of plastic surgeons about the changes their operative approaches accomplish and can be a very useful guide for patients. It is recommended as a part of the pre- and postoperative physical examination of patients undergoing rhinoplasty.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alsarraf R (2000) Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesth Plast Surg 24:192–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alsarraf R (2002) Outcome instruments in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg 18:77–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, et al. (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: A pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:198–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bafaqeeh SA (2000) Open rhinoplasty: Effectiveness of different tipplasty techniques to increase nasal projection. Am J Otolaryngol 21:231–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagal AA, Adamson PA (2002) Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 18:233–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bull TR (1983) Rhinoplasty: Aesthetics, ethics, and airway. J Laryngol Otol 97:901–916

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Byrd HS, Burt JD (2002) Dimensional approach to rhinoplasty: Perfecting the aesthetic balance between the nose and chin. In: Gunter JP, Rohrich RJ, Adams WP (eds) Dallas rhinoplasty: Nasal surgery by the masters. 1st ed. Quality Medical Publishing: St. Louis, pp. 118–123

    Google Scholar 

  8. Constantian MB (2006) Closed rhinoplasty: Current techniques, theory, and applications. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery. 2nd ed. Saunders: Philadelphia, p. 524

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dziewulski P, Dujon D, Spyriounis P, et al. (1995) A retrospective analysis of the results of 218 consecutive rhinoplasties. Br J Plast Surg 48:451–454

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1985) Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: Revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:328–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Guyuron B, Bukhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 20:153–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Klassen A, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatric R, et al. (1998) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic surgery patients with a condition-specific instrument: The Derriford scale. Br J Plast Surg 51:380–384

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leong SCL, White PS (2006) A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Reconst Aesthet Surg 59:248–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Luce EA (1999) Outcome studies and practice guidelines in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1187–1190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Most SP, Alsarraf R, Larabee WF (2002) Outcomes of facial cosmetic procedures. Facial Plast Surg 18:119–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pearson DC, Adamson PA (2004) The ideal nasal profile: Rhinoplasty patients vs the general public. Arch Facial Plast Surg 6:257–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rankin M, Borah GL, Perry AW, et al. (1998) Quality of life outcomes after cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:2139–2145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rich JS, Friedman WH, Pearlman SJ (1991) The effects of lower lateral cartilage excision on nasal tip projection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:56–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rohrich RJ, Muzaffar AR (2006) Primary rhinoplasty. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery. 2nd ed. Saunders: Philadelphia, p. 427

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sharp HR, Rowe-Jones JM (2003) Assessing outcome in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 28:430–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sheen JH (1987) Aesthetic rhinoplasty. 1st ed. Mosby: St. Louis, p. 87

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vuyk HD, Oakenfull C, Plaat RE (1997) A quantitative appraisal of change in nasal tip projection after open rhinoplasty. Rhinology 35:124–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yaremchuk MJ (2006) Facial skeletal augmentation. In: Mathes SJ (ed) Plastic surgery. 2nd ed. Saunders: Philadelphia, p. 405

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdoljalil Kalantar Hormozi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hormozi, A.K., Toosi, A.B. Rhinometry: An Important Clinical Index for Evaluation of the Nose Before and After Rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 32, 286–293 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9057-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9057-y

Keywords

Navigation