Literature DB >> 27106142

Nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty: comparison of professional rating with patient satisfaction.

Niels Christian Pausch1, Carolin Unger2, Poramate Pitak-Arnnop3, Keskanya Subbalekha4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare professional rating and patient satisfaction of nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty.
METHOD: We used a cross-sectional study design and enrolled German adults with nonsyndromic unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and/or palate (UCLP and BCLP, respectively) undergoing secondary cleft rhinoplasty from January 2001 to December 2013. The predictor variable was professional rating. The outcome variable was patient satisfaction with postoperative nasal aesthetics. Other study variables included patient age and gender, type of surgery, and patient rating of nasal function. Appropriate descriptive and univariate statistics were computed, and a P value of <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of Cohen's kappa coefficient.
RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 242 adult cleft patients of mean age of 22.1 ± 9.2 years (range 14-64), including 97 females (40 %) and 176 unilateral clefts (73 %). Most of the patients reported good function (82 %) and good aesthetics (74 %). The main professional rating was good aesthetics (65 %). Analysis of inter-observer reliability revealed significant differences between patient satisfaction and professional assessment (κ = 0.385; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the patients were satisfied with the functional and aesthetic results of secondary cleft rhinoplasty, patient self-assessment of nasal appearance differed from professional assessment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cleft lip and palate; Facial perception; Patient satisfaction; Secondary rhinoplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27106142     DOI: 10.1007/s10006-016-0555-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1865-1550


  33 in total

1.  Secondary cleft rhinoplasty rejuvenates the nose: a suggestion from a panel survey.

Authors:  Niels Christian Pausch; Poramate Pitak-Arnnop; Philipp Yorck Herzberg; Kittipong Dhanuthai; Alexander Hemprich
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod       Date:  2011-02

2.  Correction of unilateral secondary cleft lip nose deformity by a modified Tajima's method and several adjunctive procedures based on severity.

Authors:  Hii-Sun Jeong; Hye-Kyung Lee; Keuk-Shun Shin
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Evaluation of the outcome of secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  N Chaithanyaa; K K Rai; H R Shivakumar; Amarnath Upasi
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Nasal changes after presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) in the unilateral cleft lip nose.

Authors:  David F Gomez; Sean T Donohue; Alvaro A Figueroa; John W Polley
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2011-08-16

5.  Satisfaction with treatment outcome in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  B C M Oosterkamp; P U Dijkstra; H J Remmelink; R P van Oort; S M Goorhuis-Brouwer; A Sandham; L G M de Bont
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 2.789

6.  Perceptions and satisfaction of aesthetic outcome following secondary cleft rhinoplasty: evaluation by patients versus health professionals.

Authors:  Miriam Byrne; Jeffrey C Y Chan; Eoin O'Broin
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Analysis of nasal and labial deformities in cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients by a new rating scale: preliminary report.

Authors:  Y Anastassov; C Chipkov
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.078

8.  Corrective rhinoplasty before puberty: a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  F Ortiz-Monasterio; A Olmedo
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 4. Assessment of nasolabial appearance.

Authors:  C Asher-McDade; V Brattström; E Dahl; J McWilliam; K Mølsted; D A Plint; B Prahl-Andersen; G Semb; W C Shaw; R P The
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  1992-09

Review 10.  MOC-PS(SM) CME article: late cleft lip nasal deformity.

Authors:  Bahman Guyuron
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.730

View more
  4 in total

1.  Perception of Nasal Aesthetics: Nose or Face?

Authors:  Melekber Çavuş Özkan; Mehmet Bayramiçli
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Categorization and Analysis of Nasal Base Shapes Using a Parametric Model.

Authors:  Alisa Zhukhovitskaya; Dalan Cragun; Erica Su; Christian H Barnes; Brian J F Wong
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

3.  Aesthetics Assessment and Patient Reported Outcome of Nasolabial Aesthetics in 18-Year-Old Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip.

Authors:  Frans J Mulder; David G M Mosmuller; Riekie H C W de Vet; J P W Don Griot
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2019-02-26

4.  Defining the Aesthetic Range of Normal Symmetry for Lip and Nose Features in 5-Year-Old Children Using the Computer-Based Program SymNose.

Authors:  Nirvana S S Kornmann; Robin A Tan; Frans J Mulder; Joseph T Hardwicke; Bruce M Richard; Brian B Pigott; Ronald W Pigott
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2018-11-21
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.