Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing Patient Questions Before and After Rhinoplasty on Social Media: A Big Data Approach

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

Abstract

Background

As an aesthetic surgery, a successful rhinoplasty is often assessed by patient satisfaction, subject to a diverse array of qualitative factors including patient expectations and happiness with care provided. While substantial effort has been dedicated to understanding patients’ post-operative concerns, addressing patients’ pre-operative questions has been comparatively less studied. This study analysed pre- and post-operative questions about rhinoplasty on social media to gain insights into patients’ concerns and develop targeted educational material.

Methods

The most viewed rhinoplasty questions on Realself.com, a social media platform for discussions about cosmetic surgeries, were collected and analysed. Questions were then stratified into pre- and post-operative and further assigned categories based on common topics found in the data. Using a machine learning approach, the most common pre- and post-operative questions were determined.

Results

2014 rhinoplasty questions were collected in total, with 957 pre-operative and 1057 post-operative. The most commonly asked pre-operative questions were about appearance (n = 441, 46.1%), function (n = 102, 10.7%), and cost (n = 94, 9.8%). The most commonly asked post-operative questions were about appearance (n = 502, 47.5%), behaviour allowed/disallowed (n = 283, 26.8%), and symptoms after surgery (n = 235, 22.2%). An educational handout with the 10 most common pre- and post-operative questions was developed using machine learning analysis, with the majority of questions about appearance.

Conclusions

Patients primarily expressed concern about appearance when asking questions about rhinoplasty on social media, along with other aspects of their pre- and post-operative course. The educational handout developed by this study can be applied to address commonly asked patient questions during pre-operative education.

Level of Evidence V

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 2019 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed 26 September 2020.

  2. Lohuis PJFM, Hakim S, Duivesteijn W, Knobbe A, Tasman A-J (2013) Benefits of a short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(6):913e–923e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM (2003) Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(1):469–480 (discussion 481 462)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rezaei F, Rezaei F, Abbasi H, Moradi H (2019) A comparison of doctor/patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasty: a prospective study. J Med Life 12(4):374–380

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Byrne M, Chan JC, O’Broin E (2014) Perceptions and satisfaction of aesthetic outcome following secondary cleft rhinoplasty: evaluation by patients versus health professionals. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 42(7):1062–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD (2015) Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a social media analysis. Aesthet Surg J 36(1):NP1–NP5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA et al (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Fac Plast Surg 18(1):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Spiekermann C, Savvas E, Rudack C, Stenner M (2018) Development and validation of a brief four-component questionnaire to identify patient’s motivation to undergo functional rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 34(4):350–355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan N, Rashid M, Khan I et al (2019) Satisfaction in patients after rhinoplasty using the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire. Cureus 11(7):e5283

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Spiekermann C, Rudack C, Stenner M (2017) Reliability and validity of the German version of the utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty (D-OAR). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(11):3893–3898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(4):1807–1811

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Keles HP, Besir A, Livaoglu M (2020) Comparison of rhinoplasty patients informed with standard verbal information in preoperative period and rhinoplasty patients informed and treated with visual information through catalog in terms of the development of agitation, edema and ecchymose in the postoperative period. J Craniofac Surg 31(3):816–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sharif-Askary B, Carlson AR, Cornejo A, Berkowitz RL, Marcus JR (2020) Perioperative practice patterns for rhinoplasty: faculty speakers from the first international meeting of rhinoplasty societies. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(5):1013e–1015e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hong P, Makdessian AS, Ellis DA, Taylor SM (2009) Informed consent in rhinoplasty: prospective randomized study of risk recall in patients who are given written disclosure of risks versus traditional oral discussion groups. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 38(3):5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Santos PJF, Daar DA, Paydar KZ, Wirth GA (2018) Readability of online materials for rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 7(1):89–96

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wheeler CK, Said H, Prucz R, Rodrich RJ, Mathes DW (2011) Social media in plastic surgery practices: emerging trends in North America. Aesthet Surg J 31(4):435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gould DJ, Grant Stevens W, Nazarian S (2017) A primer on social media for plastic surgeons: what do i need to know about social media and how can it help my practice? Aesthet Surg J 37(5):614–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Domanski MC, Cavale N (2012) Self-reported, “worth it” rating of aesthetic surgery in social media. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(6):1292–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bird S, Klein E, Loper E (2009) Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. “O’Reilly Media Inc,” California

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A et al (2011) Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hagberg A, Swart P, Chult S (2008) Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Los Alamos National Lab (LANL), Los Alamos

    Google Scholar 

  22. Svd Walt, Colbert SC, Varoquaux G (2011) The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. Comput Sci Eng 13(2):22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robertson S (2004) Understanding inverse document frequency: on theoretical arguments for IDF. J Doc 60(5):503–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang A (2008) Similarity measures for text document clustering. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the sixth new zealand computer science research student conference (NZCSRSC2008), Christchurch, New Zealand

  25. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T (1999) The PAGERANK citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab, California

    Google Scholar 

  26. Najjaran Toussi H, Shareh H (2019) Changes in the indices of body image concern, sexual self-esteem and sexual body image in females undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty: a single-group trial. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(3):771–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sena Esteves S, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Carvalho Almeida J, Abrunhosa J, Almeida ESC (2017) Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83(5):552–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kobayashi D, Goto R, Tsugawa Y (2019) Impact of improved price transparency on patients’ demand of healthcare services. Soc Sci Med 235:112390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kyle MK, Ridley DB (2007) Would greater transparency and uniformity of health care prices benefit poor patients? Health Aff 26(5):1384–1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta R, Tsay C, Fogerty RL (2015) Promoting cost transparency to reduce financial harm to patients. AMA J Ethics 17(11):1073–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Alokozai A, Crijns TJ, Janssen SJ et al (2019) Cost in hand surgery: the patient perspective. J Hand Surg Am 44(11):992.e991-992.e926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Billig JI, Chen J-S, Lu Y-T, Chung KC, Sears ED (2020) The economic burden of out-of-pocket expenses for plastic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 145(6):1541–1551

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Haymes AT (2016) The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the internet. Ann Plast Surg 76(2):143–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shah A, Patel A, Smetona J, Rohrich RJ (2017) Public perception of cosmetic surgeons versus plastic surgeons: increasing transparency to educate patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(2):544e–557e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Naraghi M, Atari M (2016) Development and validation of the expectations of aesthetic rhinoplasty scale. Arch Plast Surg 43(4):365–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS (2010) Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(6):394–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moscatiello F, Jover JH, Ballester MAG, Hernández EC, Piombino P, Califano L (2010) Preoperative digital three-dimensional planning for rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(2):232–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 90 Bergen Street, Suite 8100, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA

    Christopher C. Tseng, Jeff Gao, Guy Talmor & Boris Paskhover

  2. Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Neurological Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA

    Boris Paskhover

Authors
  1. Christopher C. Tseng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guy Talmor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Boris Paskhover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boris Paskhover.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

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

Tseng, C.C., Gao, J., Talmor, G. et al. Characterizing Patient Questions Before and After Rhinoplasty on Social Media: A Big Data Approach. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 1685–1692 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02203-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02203-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation