Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2023; 39(04): 377-386
DOI: 10.1055/a-1967-5943
Original Article

Clinical Benefits of the Utrecht Questionnaire for Aesthetic Outcome Assessment in Rhinoplasty: An Update

Felix Maldonado-Chapa 
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
,
Frank R. Datema
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Floris V.W.J. van Zijl
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Gregor Bran
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
,
Oscar A. Flores-Torres
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
,
Pedro Stapleton-Garcia
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
,
Boris Filipović
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Sveti Duh, Zagreb, Croatia
,
Peter J.F.M. Lohuis
1   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lohuis-Filipović Medical Group, Zagreb, Croatia
4   Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Bergman Clinics, Hilversum, The Netherlands
6   Department of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ruysdael Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Presently, there is no consensus on which patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instrument is best suited to assess the aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasty. In this regard, at least seven different validated PROMs are available from the literature, each one with advantages and disadvantages.

In this article, we review the development, validation, international translation, and clinical application of the Utrecht Questionnaire (UQ). The UQ was developed in 2009 with the idea to be a short and practical tool for the rhinoplasty surgeon to assess the aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasty. The questionnaire was then validated in 2013. Body image in relation to nasal appearance is quantified with five simple questions on a 5-point Likert scale and a Visual Analogue Scale score. We discuss how the UQ can easily be incorporated and become an important asset in a rhinoplasty practice. Practical benefits, such as its role in the shared decision-making process, patient expectations management, identification of unsuitable patients, avoiding revision surgery, and the evaluation of the surgeon's personal performance curve, are exemplified. Currently, the UQ has been translated and validated in four languages, providing scientific opportunities to generate and compare international data for advances in rhinoplasty. We describe some of the significant scientific contributions of leaders in the field of rhinoplasty that used the UQ.

Keywords

rhinoplasty - aesthetic rhinoplasty - patient-reported outcomes


Publication History

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 October 2022

Article published online:
23 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (04) 1807-1811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 van Zijl FVWJ, Mokkink LB, Haagsma JA, Datema FR. Evaluation of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty: a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019; 21 (02) 152-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alsarraf R, Larrabee Jr WF, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson Jr CM. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3 (03) 198-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lohuis PJ, Faraj-Hakim S, Knobbe A, Duivesteijn W, Bran GM. Split hump technique for reduction of the overprojected nasal dorsum: a statistical analysis on subjective body image in relation to nasal appearance and nasal patency in 97 patients undergoing aesthetic rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (05) 346-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rosa F, Lohuis PJFM, Almeida J. et al. The Portuguese version of “The Utrecht questionnaire for outcome assessment in aesthetic rhinoplasty”: validation and clinical application. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2019; 85 (02) 170-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Spiekermann C, Rudack C, Stenner M. Reliability and validity of the German version of the Utrecht Questionnaire for Outcome Assessment in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty (D-OAR). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (11) 3893-3898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jahandideh H, Dehghani Firouzabadi F, Dehghani Firouzabadi M, Jfm Lohuis P, Roomiani M. The Persian version of Utrecht Questionnaire for Evaluation of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Outcomes: translation and validation. World J Plast Surg 2020; 9 (02) 141-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van Zijl FVWJ, Lohuis PJFM, Datema FR. The rhinoplasty health care monitor: using validated questionnaires and a web-based outcome dashboard to evaluate personal surgical performance. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (03) 207-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Santos M, Rego ÂR, Coutinho M, Sousa CAE, Ferreira MG. Spare roof technique in reduction rhinoplasty: prospective study of the first one hundred patients. Laryngoscope 2019; 129 (12) 2702-2706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ferreira MG, Santos M. E Carmo DO, et al. Spare roof technique versus component dorsal hump reduction: a randomized prospective study in 250 primary rhinoplasties, aesthetic and functional outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (03) 288-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Datema FR, van Zijl FVWJ, van der Poel EF, Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Lohuis PJFM. Transparency in functional rhinoplasty: benefits of routine prospective outcome measurements in a tertiary referral center. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (04) 691-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Datema FR, Lohuis PJ. Tongue-in-groove setback of the medial crura to control nasal tip deprojection in open rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (01) 53-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lohuis PJ, Datema FR. Patient satisfaction in Caucasian and Mediterranean open rhinoplasty using the tongue-in-groove technique: prospective statistical analysis of change in subjective body image in relation to nasal appearance following aesthetic rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (04) 831-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Santos M, Ribeiro A, Almeida E Sousa C. et al. Shaved cartilage gel versus diced cartilage on final dorsal camouflage: prospective study of 200 patients. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021; 23 (03) 164-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gostian M, Stange T, Wurm J, Gostian AO. Patient-reported outcome measures in external and endonasal functional septorhinoplasty - a propensity score matching study. Am J Otolaryngol 2021; 42 (01) 102763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 van Zijl FVWJ, Versnel S, van der Poel EF, Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Datema FR. Use of routine prospective functional and aesthetic patient satisfaction measurements in secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (06) 488-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rodrigues Dias D, Santos M, Sousa E Castro S, Almeida E Sousa C, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Sousa C. The spare roof technique as a new approach to the crooked nose. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (03) 178-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar