BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning and postoperative outcome assessment in rhinoplasty are important. For preoperative planning, some standard relationships are defined and evaluated primarily with standard photographs, but photographs do not necessarily reflect reality. Outcome assessment, on the other hand, is mostly subjective, and again, even photographic analyses may not address real changes after rhinoplasty. METHODS: "Rhinometry" is introduced as a clinical method for preoperative evaluations and postoperative judgments, and rhinometric parameters are defined. Measurements of these parameters were performed for 300 patients before rhinoplasty and in the follow-up visits 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the nasal length and tip projection for most patients were more than ideal. There was moderate reduction in nasal length (mean, 9.21 mm) and a decrease in tip projection (mean, 3.34 mm) for the majority of the patients after rhinoplasty. Reductions in nasal length, tip projection, bony base width, alar base width, and alar base width during a smile were statistically significant. Patients who underwent surgery using the closed approach had significantly more reduction in nasal length and less reduction in tip projection. All the patients were satisfied with these pre- and postoperative data. Rhinometry changed the ideas of the authors about some changes that their operative approaches produce. CONCLUSIONS: Rhinometry can change the ideas of plastic surgeons about the changes their operative approaches accomplish and can be a very useful guide for patients. It is recommended as a part of the pre- and postoperative physical examination of patients undergoing rhinoplasty.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning and postoperative outcome assessment in rhinoplasty are important. For preoperative planning, some standard relationships are defined and evaluated primarily with standard photographs, but photographs do not necessarily reflect reality. Outcome assessment, on the other hand, is mostly subjective, and again, even photographic analyses may not address real changes after rhinoplasty. METHODS: "Rhinometry" is introduced as a clinical method for preoperative evaluations and postoperative judgments, and rhinometric parameters are defined. Measurements of these parameters were performed for 300 patients before rhinoplasty and in the follow-up visits 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the nasal length and tip projection for most patients were more than ideal. There was moderate reduction in nasal length (mean, 9.21 mm) and a decrease in tip projection (mean, 3.34 mm) for the majority of the patients after rhinoplasty. Reductions in nasal length, tip projection, bony base width, alar base width, and alar base width during a smile were statistically significant. Patients who underwent surgery using the closed approach had significantly more reduction in nasal length and less reduction in tip projection. All the patients were satisfied with these pre- and postoperative data. Rhinometry changed the ideas of the authors about some changes that their operative approaches produce. CONCLUSIONS: Rhinometry can change the ideas of plastic surgeons about the changes their operative approaches accomplish and can be a very useful guide for patients. It is recommended as a part of the pre- and postoperative physical examination of patients undergoing rhinoplasty.