Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Adolescent Rhinoplasty: Challenges and Psychosocial and Clinical Outcomes

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hillhorst MT (2002) Philosophical pitfalls in cosmetic surgery: a case of rhinoplasty during adolescence. Med Humanit 28:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferraro GA, Rossano F, D’Andrea F (2005) Self-perception and self-esteem of patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 29:184–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McGrath MH, Mukerji S (2000) Plastic surgery and the teenage patient. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 13:105–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

  5. Stal S, Peterson R, Spira M (1998) Aesthetic considerations and the pediatric population. Clinics Plast Surg 25:631

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rhee JS, McMullin BT (2008) Outcome measures in facial plastic surgery: Patient-reported and clinical efficacy measures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 10:194–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG (1996) Measuring patient benefit from otolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105(Suppl 6):415–422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhattacharyya EH, Kepnes LJ, Shapiro J (2001) Efficacy and quality of life impact of adult tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:1347–1350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hay G, Heather B (1973) Changes is psychometric test results following cosmetic nasal operations. Br J Psych 122:89–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goin M, Rees T (1991) A prospective study of psychological reactions to rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 27:210–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fodor PB (1988) Aesthetic rhinoplasty in early adolescence. Aesth Plast Surg 12:207–216

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Warner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9489-7

Keywords

Navigation