Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 1595–1600 | Cite as

The Importance of Multiple, Different Rhinoplasty Consultations in Patient Selection

  • Zeynel Abidin Erkan
  • Sanem Okşan ErkanEmail author
Original Article Rhinoplasty
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to investigate the relationship between the number of visits to different physicians and postoperative satisfaction in patients undergoing primary septorhinoplasty by using the ROE survey.

Methods

Patients for whom we performed septorhinoplasty in the last 3 years were examined. Patients who visited 3 different physicians (including us) before the surgery were allocated to group 1. Patients who visited ≥ 4 physicians comprised group 2. We randomized 50 patients in each group. Rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) was performed twice for the preoperative evaluation and to determine the satisfaction in postoperative 6th month.

Results

Preoperative and postoperative ROE values were significantly lower in group 2 (p < 0.001). ROE values after surgery were 82% in group 1 and 68.92% in group 2.

Conclusion

We think that it is more appropriate for patients who visit many surgeons to be evaluated more carefully and to be psychologically examined.

Level of Evidence IV

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.

Keyword

Rhinoplasty Rhinoplasty outcome evaluation Visit Selecting patients 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Asena Ayça Özdemir for her valuable help in the statistical analyses.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS (2011) Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 77:510–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N et al (2018) Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(1):79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Javanbakht M, Nazari A, Javanbakht A, Moghaddam L (2012) Body dysmorphic factors and mental health problems in people seeking rhinoplastic surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 32(1):37–40PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S et al (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: A pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3(3):198–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Çelik M, Altıntaş A (2019) The turkish version of the rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation questionnaire: validation and clinical application. Balkan Med J 36(2):129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ercolani M, Baldaro B, Rossi N, Trombini G (1999) Five-year follow-up of cosmetic rhinoplasty. J Psychosom Res 47:28–86Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amodeo CA (2007) The central role of the nose in the face and the psyche: Review of the nose and the psyche. Aesth. Plast Surg 31:406–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sarwer DB (2002) Awareness and identification of body dysmorphic disorder by aesthetic surgeons: results of a survey of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery members. Aesthet Surg J 22(06):531–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Gabriels L, Jorissen M, Hellings PW (2011) High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(2):509–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veale D, De Haro L, Lambrou C (2003) Cosmetic rhinoplasty in body dysmorphic disorder. Br J Plast Surg 56:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veale D, Bewley A (2015) Body dysmorphic disorder. BMJ 350:2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joseph J, Randhawa P, Hannan SA, et al. (2017) Body Dysmorphic Disorder in patients undergoing septorhinoplasty surgery. Should we be performing routine screening?. Clin Otolaryngol 42(3):508–513.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adamson PA, Strecker HD (2002) Patient selection. Aesth Plast Surg 26(1):11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sykes JM (2008) Patient selection in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 16:173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tardy ME, Toriumi DM (1993) Philosophy and principles of rhinoplasty. In: Cummings CW (ed) Otolaryngology: head and neck surgery, 2nd ed.  Mosby, St.Louis, MO, pp 278–294Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Correa AJ, Sykes JM, Russell Ries W (1999) Considerations before rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 32:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knorr NJ (1972) Feminine loss of identity in rhinoplasty. Arch Otolaryngol 96:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhee JS (2009) Measuring Outcomes in Nasal Surgery: Realities and Possibilities. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11(6):416–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plastic Surg 40(2):249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Izu SC et al (2014) Validation of the rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Qual Life Res 23(3):953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I (2016) Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:2569–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryÇukurova State HospitalSeyhanTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Adana City Education and Research HospitalHealth Science UniversityYuregirTurkey

Personalised recommendations