Skip to main content

Assessing the rhinoplasty outcome: inter-rater variability of aesthetic perception in the light of objective facial analysis

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the success of rhinoplasty by evaluating the inter-rater variability in the light of primary indication as functional or cosmetic. Subjective aesthetic perception was compared with objective facial analysis. 45 rhinoplasty patients were included in the study. 25 had cosmetic plus functional reasons with septal deviation (group 1) and 20 had pure cosmetic reasons without septal deviation (group 2). Preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively, four individuals (patient, surgeon, 2 independent surgeons) rated the aesthetic appearance of the nose with visual analogue scale. Facial photogrammetric analysis was applied. The patient’s aesthetic perception score was significantly correlated with the two independent surgeons (p < 0.05) whereas not with the primary surgeons. Regarding the objective parameters, patient’s aesthetic perception was significantly correlated with the dorsal alignment in both groups (p < 0.05). General satisfaction score was significantly correlated with the nasal breathing as well as with the aesthetic perception scores in both groups. This correlation was higher for aesthetic perception in group 1 and nasal breathing in group 2. Inter-rater variability of outcome perception was higher in cosmetic patients. Nasal dorsal alignment was the only objective parameter which was correlated with the patient’s perception. Patient’s perception of outcome has better represented the objective photogrammetric analysis rather than the primary surgeons. An interesting finding was the more significant correlation of general satisfaction with aesthetic perception in the functional group whereas nasal breathing in the cosmetic group.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Sharp HR, Tingay RS, Coman S, Mills V, Roberts DN (2002) Computer imaging and patient satisfaction in rhinoplasty surgery. J Laryngol Otol 116(12):1009–1013

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg. 20(2):153–157

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Konstantinidis I, Triaridis S, Printza A, Triaridis A, Noussios G, Karagiannidis K (2003) Assessment of patient benefit from septo-rhinoplasty with the use of Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Nasal Symptom Questionnaire (NSQ). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 57(2):123–129

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McKiernan DC, Banfield G, Kumar R, Hinton AE (2001) Patient benefit from functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 26(1):50–52

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart EJ, Robinson K, Wilson JA (1996) Assessment of patient’s benefit from rhinoplasty. Rhinology 34(1):57–59

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mohammadshahi M, Pourreza A, Orojlo PH, Mahmoodi M, Akbari F (2014) Rhinoplasty as a medicalized phenomenon: a 25-center survey on quality of life before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(4):615–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mendis D, Cheang PP, Glossop LP (2013) Audit: patient reported outcomes of extracorporeal septorhinoplasty. Rhinology 51(1):88–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cingi C, Eskiizmir G (2013) Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: a prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol 38(2):136–141

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moolenburgh SE, Mureau MA, Hofer SO (2008) Aesthetic outcome after nasal reconstruction: patient versus panel perception. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(12):1459–1464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Claes G, Claes J, Wuyts FL (2009) Outcome of septorhinoplasty: a comparison of patient and surgeon views. B-ENT 5(4):203–211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Murrell GL (2014) Correlation between subjective and objective results in nasal surgery. Aesthet Surg J 34(2):249–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis RE, Bublik M (2012) Psychological considerations in the revision rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 28(4):374–379

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerem Ozturk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozturk, K., Gode, S., Karahan, C. et al. Assessing the rhinoplasty outcome: inter-rater variability of aesthetic perception in the light of objective facial analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272, 3709–3713 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3494-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3494-z

Keywords

  • Rhinoplasty
  • Outcome
  • Cosmetic
  • Inter-rater variability
  • Functional