RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/a-2369-7091
An Audit of Outcomes in Cosmetic Rhinoplasty with the Mandatory Psychiatric Evaluation Protocol
Abstract
With the high demand of rhinoplasty surgery, careful selection and management of aspirants, as well as proper assessment of outcomes after surgery, are imperative for achieving successful outcomes and learning from it. The aim of this study was to answer two important questions: (1) What is the success rate in cosmetic rhinoplasty? (2) How can we best identify candidates who would achieve good outcomes in cosmetic rhinoplasty? In this study cohort, we excluded patients with any functional concerns and confounding factors that could in any way influence patient satisfaction with a cosmetic surgery. This study is a part of the trilogy of articles on “psychology of rhinoplasty” submitted to this volume of Facial Plastic Surgery, using mandatory psychiatric evaluation (MPE) to optimize candidacy. In total, 184 patients (144 females and 40 males) aged 16 to 63 years (M = 31.09) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study (follow-up: 3–122 months; M = 70.18 months), and outcome satisfaction was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score and a 5-point Likert scale. The mean improvement between preoperative (M = 4.26) and postoperative VAS scores (M = 8.47) was 4.23. Most patients were happy or very happy (95.1%) about the surgical outcome. Patients who were very happy generally scored between 8 and 10 on the VAS (77.2%) and those who were happy generally scored between 6 and 7.9 (21.2%). Some patients, however, were neutral (3.3%) or unhappy (1.6%) about their surgical outcome, and generally scored around ≤7 on the VAS. Although the successful outcome in 95.1% patients reflects a carefully designed protocol for rhinoplasty candidacy, 4.9% patients reported poor satisfaction despite these efforts. An ever-present proportion of unhappy outcomes is a reality of this popular surgery.
Keywords
rhinoplasty - surgical outcomes - cosmetic surgery - patient satisfaction - psychological assessmentCompliance with Ethical Standards
This study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. This is an ongoing audit of cosmetic rhinoplasty in our clinics run by the senior surgeon in Ireland. The prospectively collected data of patients presenting to four clinics in Ireland aspiring for cosmetic rhinoplasty are presented. A protocol of MPE was employed and for the purpose of this particular study only the self-payers requesting cosmetic rhinoplasty were included to evaluate satisfaction from cosmetic rhinoplasty.
Publikationsverlauf
Accepted Manuscript online:
19. Juli 2024
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. August 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 ISAPS. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2021. Accessed July 24, 2024 at: https://www.isaps.org/media/vdpdanke/isaps-global-survey_2021.pdf
- 2 Grand View Research. Rhinoplasty Market Size, Share, Trends, Growth Report 2030. Accessed January 21, 2024 at: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/rhinoplasty-market
- 3 Domanski MC, Cavale N. Self-reported “worth it” rating of aesthetic surgery in social media. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (06) 1292-1295
- 4 Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC. et al. Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 76 (04) 437-441
- 5 Guyuron B, Bokhari F. Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1996; 20 (02) 153-157
- 6 Khan N, Rashid M, Khan I. et al. Satisfaction in patients after rhinoplasty using the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire. Cureus 2019; 11 (07) e5283
- 7 Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a social media analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (01) NP1-NP5
- 8 Lee PB, Miano DI, Sesselmann M. et al. RealSelf social media analysis of rhinoplasty patient reviews. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022; 75 (07) 2368-2374
- 9 McKinney P, Cook JQ. A critical evaluation of 200 rhinoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 1981; 7 (05) 357-361
- 10 Veale D. Outcome of cosmetic surgery and “DIY” surgery in patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychiatr Bull 2000; 24 (06) 218-221
- 11 Crerand CE, Franklin ME, Sarwer DB. Body dysmorphic disorder and cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (07) 167e-180e
- 12 Crerand CE, Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C. Nonpsychiatric medical treatment of body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2005; 46 (06) 549-555
- 13 Crerand CE, Menard W, Phillips KA. Surgical and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures among persons with body dysmorphic disorder. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 65 (01) 11-16
- 14 Phillips KA, Grant J, Siniscalchi J, Albertini RS. Surgical and nonpsychiatric medical treatment of patients with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2001; 42 (06) 504-510
- 15 Sarwer DB, Wadden TA, Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. Body image dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cosmetic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101 (06) 1644-1649
- 16 Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GWJA, Ingels KJAO. Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (06) 1596-1605
- 17 Gorney M. Recognition and management of the patient unsuitable for aesthetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (06) 2268-2071
- 18 Wright MR, Wright WK. A psychological study of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1975; 101 (03) 145-151
- 19 Olley PC. Aspects of plastic surgery. Social and psychological sequelae. BMJ 1974; 3 (5926) 322-324
- 20 Kandathil CK, Patel PN, Spataro EA, Most SP. Examining preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty patients: a single-center study. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (05) 375-382
- 21 Lohuis PJFM, Hakim S, Duivesteijn W, Knobbe A, Tasman AJ. Benefits of a short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (06) 913e-923e
- 22 Bagal AA, Adamson PA. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2002; 18 (04) 233-244
- 23 Bagheri SC, Khan HA, Jahangirnia A, Rad SS, Mortazavi H. An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70 (04) 902-909
- 24 Cvjetković N, Lustica I. Secondary rhinoplasty (analysis of failures over a 5-year period). Lijec Vjesn 1997; 119 (02) 68-71
- 25 Kamer FM, McQuown SA. Revision rhinoplasty. Analysis and treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114 (03) 257-266
- 26 Parkes ML, Kanodia R, Machida BK. Revision rhinoplasty. An analysis of aesthetic deformities. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992; 118 (07) 695-701
- 27 Thomson C, Mendelsohn M. Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2007; 36 (02) 130-134
- 28 Vuyk HD, Watts SJ, Vindayak B. Revision rhinoplasty: review of deformities, aetiology and treatment strategies. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000; 25 (06) 476-481
- 29 Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ. Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12 (05) 291-297