Abstract
Background
The adolescent patient subset represents a challenging demographic for the rhinoplasty surgeon due to the complex interplay of psychological, social, and physiologic influences. This study aimed to assess the authors’ experience dealing with the adolescent patient demographic using a defined set of decision-making criteria and to evaluate outcomes using validated methods with this patient population.
Methods
The patient population comprised a consecutive series of 30 patients who underwent aesthetic nasal surgery at the ages of 13 to 19 years between 2005 and 2008. In addition to the standard indications for aesthetic rhinoplasty, including patient desire and surgical appropriateness, the following criteria also were required for this age group before surgery: 1-year postmenarche status, stable growth for at least 1 year as reported by parents, and parental support. The main outcome measure was the 18-item Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), a validated and reliable postinterventional questionnaire aimed at detecting changes in health status produced by surgical interventions. The potential GBI score ranges from −100 (maximal harm) through 0 (no change) to +100 (maximal benefit).
Results
Enhanced quality of life and patient benefit after rhinoplasty were evident in this patient population. Positive benefit is evident in the General subscale (mean GBI score, 68.2), the Physical Health scale (mean GBI score, 18.3), the Social Support scale (mean GBI score, 32.2), and the Total scale (mean GBI score, 53.8). Although no statistically significant difference in satisfaction was observed between the early postoperative period (<30 months) and the later postoperative period (>30 months), the means were higher for the Social Support and Physical Health scales among the patients surveyed later, trending toward significance. The patient population showed no evidence of a gender- or age-based effect.
Conclusions
Quality of life was enhanced by aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty in this patient population according to the authors’ defined set of preoperative criteria and evaluation. The adolescent subgroup represents a unique demographic to treat based on a combination of social, cultural, and psychological variables. Aesthetic rhinoplasty is an undeniably effective tool for correcting psychologically impairing features that adolescents perceive as undesirable. Postoperatively, these patients demonstrate positive changes in behavior and interpersonal relations. With proper preoperative assessment and selection, excellent aesthetic and psychosocial outcomes can be expected.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hillhorst MT (2002) Philosophical pitfalls in cosmetic surgery: a case of rhinoplasty during adolescence. Med Humanit 28:61–65
Ferraro GA, Rossano F, D’Andrea F (2005) Self-perception and self-esteem of patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 29:184–189
McGrath MH, Mukerji S (2000) Plastic surgery and the teenage patient. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 13:105–118
National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Statistics (2008) Report of the 2007 Statistics. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Department of Public Relations, 444 East Algonquin Rd., Arlington Heights, IL 60005 www.plasticsurgery.org. Accessed 30 September 2009
Stal S, Peterson R, Spira M (1998) Aesthetic considerations and the pediatric population. Clinics Plast Surg 25:631
Rhee JS, McMullin BT (2008) Outcome measures in facial plastic surgery: Patient-reported and clinical efficacy measures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 10:194–207
Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, Scott AM, Wilkins EG, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Carr N, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL (2009) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1819–1827
Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105(Suppl 6):415–422
Bhattacharyya EH, Kepnes LJ, Shapiro J (2001) Efficacy and quality of life impact of adult tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:1347–1350
Pahuta MA, Mainprize JG, Rohlf FJ, Antonyshyn OM (2009) Biometric morphing: a novel technique for the analysis of morphologic outcomes after facial surgery. Ann Plast Surg 62:48–53
Pecorari G, Gramaglia C, Garzaro M, Abbate-Daga G, Cavallo GP, Giordano C, Fassino S (2010) Self-esteem and personality in subjects with and without body dysmorphic disorder traits undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty: Preliminary data. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(3):493–498
Luce EA (1999) Outcome studies and practice guidelines in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1187–1190
Okur E, Yildirim I, Aydogan B, Akif Kilic M (2004) Outcome of surgery for crooked nose: an objective method of evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 28:203–207
Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM (2003) Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:469–480
Noussios G (2003) Assessment of patient benefit from septorhinoplasty with the use of Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Nasal Symptom Questionnaire (NSQ). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 57:123–129
Hay G, Heather B (1973) Changes is psychometric test results following cosmetic nasal operations. Br J Psych 122:89–90
Goin M, Rees T (1991) A prospective study of psychological reactions to rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 27:210–215
Fodor PB (1988) Aesthetic rhinoplasty in early adolescence. Aesth Plast Surg 12:207–216
Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 20:153–157
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chauhan, N., Warner, J. & Adamson, P.A. Adolescent Rhinoplasty: Challenges and Psychosocial and Clinical Outcomes. Aesth Plast Surg 34, 510–516 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9489-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9489-7