Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2024; 40(01): 031-035
DOI: 10.1055/a-2034-8397
Original Research

An Overview of Rhinoplasty Practices: European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery, Collaborative Cross-Sectional Study

R Mandavia 
1   Department of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, University College London Hospitals, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
,
D. Parmar
2   Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Luton, United Kingdom
,
M.N. Ahmed
3   Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom
,
V. Berber 
4   Department of Otolaryngology, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
,
D. Sanz
5   Miguel Servet University Hospital, Zaragoza, Spain
,
B. Paulucci
6   Royal Free NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
,
A.R. D'Souza
7   Department of Otolaryngology, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust UK, London, United Kingdom
,
on behalf of the EAFPS Rhinoplasty Research Network › Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This collaborative European Academy of Plastic Surgery (EAFPS) study aimed to provide an overview of rhinoplasty practices, informing clinician and patient decision making. It is a multicenter cross-sectional study, reported as per Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. All EAFPS members were contacted via email, inviting them to participate. Members expressing an interest to participate were asked to anonymously complete a questionnaire, related to rhinoplasties that they performed as first/supervising surgeon over a period from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2022. A descriptive analysis was performed. One hundred and fifteen surgeons submitted data on 41,259 rhinoplasties from 33 countries. Eighty percent of rhinoplasties were primary, and 20% were secondary. Thirty five percent of primary rhinoplasties were closed and 65% were open. Thirty one percent of primary rhinoplasties were for cosmetic indications, 11% functional and 58% were for both. Of the 8147 secondary rhinoplasties, 44% were closed and 56% were open. Thirty percent were for cosmetic indications, 11% functional, and 59% for both cosmetic and functional. Ninety-one percent of rhinoplasties were performed by ENT surgeons, 3% by plastic surgeons, 5% by maxillofacial surgeons, and 1% were dual (maxillofacial and ENT) trained. One-thousand seven-hundred thirty primary rhinoplasties underwent revision surgery (5%) and 102 secondary rhinoplasties underwent revision surgery (1%). The most commonly reported indications for revision surgery were dorsal asymmetry, nasal blockage, and dissatisfaction with nasal tip. Three percent of rhinoplasties underwent preoperative psychological assessment. To the authors knowledge, this is the largest published rhinoplasty dataset. This study provides an overview of rhinoplasty practices that can be used for benchmarking and to guide clinician and patient decision making. Psychological assessment of prerhinoplasty appears insufficient with higher levels recommended to minimize unsuccessful outcomes. This study showcases the power of collaborative research and may serve as a catalyst for future collaborative facial plastic surgery research.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - cross-sectional - collaborative

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 February 2023

Article published online:
29 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Fichman M, Buena ITP. . Rhinoplasty. Stat Pearls. 2022. Accessed February 25, 2023 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK558970/
  • 2 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Rogers BO. John Orlando Roe–not Jacques Joseph–the father of aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 80 (02) 332
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Eytan DF, Wang TD. Complications in rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2022; 49 (01) 179-189
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Hickey GL, Cosgriff R, Grant SW. et al. A technical review of the United Kingdom National Adult Cardiac Surgery Governance Analysis 2008-11. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 45 (02) 225-233
    Google Scholar
  • 6 National Hip Fracture Database Annual report. 2015. Accessed February 25, 2023 at: https://www.nhfd.co.uk/20/hipfracturer.nsf/docs/reports2015
  • 7 Hopkins J, Welbourn R. The importance of national registries/databases in metabolic surgery: the UK experience. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016; 12 (06) 1178-1185
    Google Scholar
  • 8 The UK national bariatric surgery registry: The third report. 2020. Accessed February 25, 2023 at: https://www.e-dendrite.com/NBSR2020
  • 9 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (10) e296
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Shauly O, Calvert J, Stevens G, Rohrich R, Villanueva N, Gould DJ. Assessment of wellbeing and anxiety-related disorders in those seeking rhinoplasty: a crowdsourcing-based study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (04) e2737
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Naraghi M, Atari M. Development and validation of the expectations of aesthetic rhinoplasty scale. Arch Plast Surg 2016; 43 (04) 365-370
    Google Scholar
  • 12 de Souza TSC, Patrial MTCRO, Meneguetti AFC, de Souza MSC, Meneguetti ME, Rossato VF. Body dysmorphic disorder in rhinoplasty candidates: prevalence and functional correlations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (02) 641-648
    Google Scholar