Facial Plast Surg 2017; 33(02): 207-212
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597997
Rapid Communication
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Rhinoplasty Results Are Influenced by Non-nasal Features

Frederick Wang
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
,
Ginger Xu
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
,
Ronald Peter Gruber
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford University, Stanford, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 April 2017 (online)

Abstract

Rhinoplasty results are evaluated both objectively and subjectively following any procedure by plastic surgeons and nonplastic surgeons at meetings, in publications, and online. We aim to evaluate whether subjective aesthetics of non-nasal features, such as the eyes and lips, would influence the overall evaluation of rhinoplasty results. We matched pairs of photographs of patients who had undergone aesthetic rhinoplasty by sex, age, and skin tone. We transferred the eyes/eyebrows and lips from the photographs of the donor patient onto the photographs of the original patient to create composite photographs. Plastic surgeons were asked to rate the rhinoplasty results objectively, and non-plastic surgeons were asked to rate the overall attractiveness of 16 sets of photographs (8 originals and 8 composites). Postoperative photographs that were deemed to be more attractive were associated with higher ratings of rhinoplasty improvement. The objective nasal result may be influenced by non-nasal aesthetic factors as rhinoplasty surgeons gave higher ratings to more attractive faces. Greater emphasis on neutralizing non-nasal factors in pre- and postoperative photographs should be considered.

 
  • References

  • 1 Guyuron B. Dynamics of rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002; 26 (Suppl. 01) S10
  • 2 Guyuron B. Precision rhinoplasty. Part I: the role of life-size photographs and soft-tissue cephalometric analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81 (4) 489-499
  • 3 Constantian MB. The boxy nasal tip, the ball tip, and alar cartilage malposition: variations on a theme—a study in 200 consecutive primary and secondary rhinoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (1) 268-281
  • 4 Byrd HS, Hobar PC. Rhinoplasty: a practical guide for surgical planning. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91 (4) 642-654 , discussion 655–656
  • 5 Rohrich RJ, Ahmad J. Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (2) 49e-73e
  • 6 Çakir B, Doğan T, Öreroğlu AR, Daniel RK. Rhinoplasty: surface aesthetics and surgical techniques. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (3) 363-375
  • 7 Daniel RK, Lessard ML. Rhinoplasty: a graded aesthetic-anatomical approach. Ann Plast Surg 1984; 13 (5) 436-451
  • 8 Katira K, Guyuron B. The deviated nose and asymmetric eyebrows: an important trap to avoid. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (3) 519-523
  • 9 Daniel RK, Kosins A, Sajjadian A, Cakir B, Palhasi P, Molnar G. Rhinoplasty and brow modification: a powerful combination. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (7) 983-994