Abstract
Introduction
The goal of this study report is to define the “gender angle,” a new angle which represents the masculine or feminine nasal shape, for performing a gender-oriented rhinoplasty. The use of the “gender angle” in Caucasian patients will help the plastic surgeon in the search for a suitable nose for the patient’s face and above all for the search for maximum patient satisfaction.
Materials and Methods
The study population was obtained from Caucasian patients who had undergone rhinoplasty between January 1986 and September 2016 at our department. Patients answered the Italian version of the FACE-Q outcome instrument on post-rhinoplasty satisfaction with their nose. Anthropometric measurements were taken retrospectively by AutoCAD for MAC on a photograph of the profile view taken postoperatively at the last follow-up.
Results
A total of 1774 (706 male and 1068 female) patients satisfied the inclusion criteria and were finally enrolled in this study. We identified a gender-specific angle ranging from 168° to 182° for the male nose and from 160° to 178° for the female nose. We subdivided all study patients into 3 ranges of angles as follows: male nose, range 1 = 168°–172°, range 2 = 173°–177°, range 3 = 178°–182°; female nose, range 1 = 160°–166°, range 2 = 167°–171°, range 3 = 172°–178°. All study patients completed the FACE-Q rhinoplasty postoperative module. Analysis was performed of the FACE-Q results and the angle obtained for each nose. The most satisfactory angle range for male patients was range 3 (P = 0.01) and for the female patients was range 2 (P = 0.01).
Conclusions
The “gender angle” might be a parameter that effectively provides the optimal cosmetic result for male and female patients who undergo rhinoplasty.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2013) Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(6):1078e–1079e
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Cagli B, Persichetti P (2015) FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:272–273
Cogliandro A, Barone M, Persichetti P (2017) Italian linguistic validation of the FACE-Q instrument. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19(4):336–337
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures following transsexual surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):700–713
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2017) Role of rhinoplasty in transsexual patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 41(3):700–713
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2013) Rhinoplasty: a cross cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):664e–665e
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Aronica R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module” in Italian. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(3):1771–1772
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA, Baker SB, Badia L, Schwitzer JA, Pusic AL (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18(1):27–35
DiBernardo BE, Adams RL, Krause J, Fiorillo MA, Gheradini G (1998) Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:559–568
DiSaia JP, Ptak JJ, Achauer BM (1998) Digital photography for the plastic surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:569–573
Galdino GM, Swier P, Manson PN, Vander Kolk CA (2000) Converting to digital photography: a model for a large group or academic practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:119–124
Galdino GM, Vogel JE, Vander Kolk CA (2001) Standardizing digital photography: it’s not all in the eye of the beholder. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:1334–1344
Krause JL (2003) Digital photographic standards. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1177–1178
Price MA, Goldstein GD (1997) The use of a digital imaging system in a dermatology surgery practice. Dermatol Surg 23:31–32
Rhodes ND, Southern SJ (2002) Digital operation notes: a useful addition to the written record. Ann Plast Surg 48:571–573
Yavuzer R, Smirnes S, Jackson IT (2001) Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 46:293–300
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004743. (Epub ahead of print)
Springer IN, Zernial O, Nölke F, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo PA, Terheyden H, Wolfart S (2008) Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:629–637
Morrison SD, Vyas KS, Motakef S, Gast KM, Chung MT, Rashidi V, Satterwhite T, Kuzon W, Cederna PS (2016) Facial feminization: systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:1759–1770
Habal MB (1990) Aesthetics of feminizing the male face by craniofacial contouring of the facial bones. Aesthet Plast Surg 14:143–150
Hage JJ, Becking AG, de Graaf FH, Tuinzing DB (1997) Gender-confirming facial surgery: considerations on the masculinity and femininity of faces. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1799–1807
Dempf R, Eckert AW (2010) Contouring the forehead and rhinoplasty in the feminization of the face in male-to-female trans-sexuals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38:416–422
Noureai SA, Randhawa P, Andrews PJ, Saleh HA (2007) The role of nasal feminization rhinoplasty in male-to-female gender reassignment. Arch Facial Plast Surg 9:318–320
Altman K (2012) Facial feminization surgery: current state of the art. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:885–894
Bartlett SP, Wornom I III, Whitaker LA (1991) Evaluation of facial skeletal aesthetics and surgical planning. Clin Plast Surg 18:1–9
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures following transsexual surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):700–713
Carvalho B, Ballin AC, Becker RV, Berger CA, Hurtado JG, Mocellin M (2012) Rhinoplasty and facial asymmetry: analysis of subjective and anthropometric factors in the Caucasian nose. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 16:445–451
Choi YD, Kim Y, Park E (2017) Patient-specific augmentation rhinoplasty using a three-dimensional simulation program and three-dimensional printing. Aesthet Surg J 37(9):988–998
Berger CA, Freitas Rda S, Malafaia O, Pinto JS, Macedo Filho ED, Mocellin M, Fagundes MS (2015) Prospective study of the surgical techniques used in primary rhinoplasty on the Caucasian nose and comparison of the preoperative and postoperative anthropometric nose measurements. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 19:34–41
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Statement
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University. This article contains studies on human participants performed by any of the authors, and each subject provided informed written consent before participating in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mauro Barone, Annalisa Cogliandro, Paolo Persichetti: Research group “To be and to appear: Objective indication to Plastic Surgery” of Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barone, M., Cogliandro, A., Salzillo, R. et al. Definition of “Gender Angle” in Caucasian Population. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 1014–1020 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01366-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01366-w