Literature DB >> 21908809

Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications.

Nitin Chauhan1, Ashlin J Alexander, Ali Sepehr, Peter A Adamson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty patients often present with specific concerns and are frequently exacting in their demands and expectations of the surgical experience.
OBJECTIVES: The authors assess the presenting complaints expressed during the rhinoplasty consultation process and compare the presentations of primary versus revision rhinoplasty patients.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 400 consecutive rhinoplasty patients was performed. Demographic information and patient concerns regarding nasal appearance and function were recorded. Complaint frequencies (as well as rank order) were compared between primary and revision patients. Statistically significant associations were compared in more detail through logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Primary rhinoplasty patients were significantly more likely to cite "too large" and "dorsal hump" as motivating concerns. Conversely, revision rhinoplasty patients were far more likely to cite concern regarding a "crooked nose," "tip asymmetry," "wide or large nostrils," "dorsal sloop," and "columellar show." Revision rhinoplasty patients also complained of issues such as "alar retraction," "pointy tip," and "nasal scarring," which were almost negligible in frequency in the primary rhinoplasty group.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting for primary rhinoplasty commonly seek a smaller, more refined nasal appearance. Patients with prior rhinoplasty operations are far more likely to raise concern regarding crookedness or asymmetries. By comparing the presentations of primary and revision rhinoplasty patients-and delineating the common indications for revision operations-novice rhinoplasty surgeons may be able to avoid certain pitfalls at the outset, thereby reducing their revision rates. The data may also assist surgeons in developing a more targeted approach to the consultation process in the revision setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21908809     DOI: 10.1177/1090820X11417427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthet Surg J        ISSN: 1090-820X            Impact factor:   4.283


  7 in total

1.  Finite Element Model Analysis of Cephalic Trim on Nasal Tip Stability.

Authors:  Ryan P Leary; Cyrus T Manuel; David Shamouelian; Dmitriy E Protsenko; Brian J F Wong
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.611

Review 2.  The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cibele Madsen Buba; Priyesh N Patel; Mikhail Saltychev; Cherian K Kandathil; Sam P Most
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 2.708

3.  Secondary Rhinoplasty: Aesthetic and Functional Concerns.

Authors:  Shahriar Loghmani; Alireza Loghmani; Fatemeh Maraki
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 0.947

4.  Readability of Online Materials for Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Pauline Joy F Santos; David A Daar; Keyianoosh Z Paydar; Garrett A Wirth
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2018-01

5.  Three-dimensional Morphing and Its Added Value in the Rhinoplasty Consult.

Authors:  Garyfalia Lekakis; Greet Hens; Peter Claes; Peter W Hellings
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-01-04

6.  Prevalence of considering revision rhinoplasty in Saudi patients and its associated factors.

Authors:  Najlaa Abdulrahman Alsubeeh; Mayar Abdulsalam AlSaqr; Mohammed Alkarzae; Badi Aldosari
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-12-10

7.  Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience and Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Rishi Suresh; Andres F Doval; Emily Newstrom; Truce Pham; Eugene L Alford
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-09-13
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.