Literature DB >> 22575851

What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients.

Mark B Constantian1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence-based information on secondary rhinoplasty patient motivations for surgery, satisfaction, or revision rates.
METHODS: The charts of 150 consecutive patients (121 women and 29 men) who underwent secondary rhinoplasty between July of 2007 and October of 2008 were reviewed; preoperative deformity severity was graded from 1 to 5. The patients' primary reasons for surgery, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and postoperative depression or body dysmorphic disorder were tallied.
RESULTS: The average number of prior operations was 3.6. The most commonly expressed reason (41 percent) for undergoing revision was the development of a new deformity after the primary rhinoplasty. Those patients also had the most severe preoperative deformities (p < 0.02). Other motivations were failure to correct the original deformity (33 percent), an intolerable perceived loss of personal, familial, or ethnic characteristics (15 percent), the desire for further improvement in an already acceptable result (10 percent), and a new or unrelieved airway obstruction (1 percent). Ninety-seven percent of patients were happy with their outcomes. Forty patients (27 percent) were depressed before surgery and three (2 percent) displayed evidence of body dysmorphic disorder postoperatively. The depressed and dysmorphic patients did not have worse deformities than those who were not depressed postoperatively (p < 0.8695).
CONCLUSIONS: Most secondary rhinoplasty patients have motivations similar to those of our other reconstructive patients and will be pleased with their surgical outcomes. The most severe preoperative deformities were iatrogenic. The unhappy postoperative patients, including those with body dysmorphic disorder, did not have more severe preoperative deformities than the others (i.e., their deformities alone did not justify their unhappiness).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22575851     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  7 in total

1.  Ultrasound imaging of the nose in septorhinoplasty patients.

Authors:  Markus Stenner; Claudia Rudack
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 2.  Perioperative Corticosteroids Reduce Short-Term Edema and Ecchymosis in Rhinoplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Christopher J Coroneos; Sophocles H Voineskos; Deborah J Cook; Forough Farrokyar; Achilleas Thoma
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.283

3.  Teenage Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Abdoljalil Kalantar-Hormozi; Roozbeh Ravar; Ali Abbaszadeh-Kasbi; Nazanin Rita Davai
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2018-01

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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.  Functional and Aesthetic Factors Associated with Revision of Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Jebrane Bouaoud; Marine Loustau; Jean-Baptiste Belloc
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-09-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.