Hesam Jahandideh1,2, Mojtaba Maleki Delarestaghi1,2, Delaram Jan2,3, Ayda Sanaei2,3. 1. ENT and Head & Neck Research Center, The Five Senses Institute, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. 3. ENT and Head and Neck Research Center and Department, Five Senses Health Research Institute, Hazrat Rasoul Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The endonasal mucosal or anatomic pathologies could lead to poor functional results and dissatisfaction after rhinoplasty. Although computed tomography (CT) scan has become an integral part of the diagnostic paradigm for patients with pathologies of the paranasal sinuses, the use of CT scan for preoperative evaluation of patients seeking rhinoplasty is up for debate. Our aim in this study was to compare the efficacy of CT scan in diagnosing nasal pathologies with other evaluating tools in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial study, 74 consecutive patients seeking cosmetic rhinoplasty referred to otorhinolaryngology clinic were randomly assigned into three groups based on the perioperative evaluation method: the CT group, the nasal endoscopy group, and the control group (anterior rhinoscopy only). Surgical planning was made according to perioperative findings, and the identified endonasal pathologies were corrected during the surgery. The functional and aesthetic outcomes of the rhinoplasty were assessed by Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) tools before surgery and at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: All outcome measures improved significantly in either group toward one year after rhinoplasty (all with p value <0.05). Subjects in the CT group demonstrated greater improvement in the NOSE, VAS, and ROE compared to other two groups (NOSE: p value = 0.17; VAS: p value = 0.024; ROE: p value = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, perioperative CT is associated with greater patients' satisfaction and quality of life after rhinoplasty compared to either nasal endoscopy or anterior rhinoscopy. A preoperative CT scan may improve the outcomes of rhinoplasty.
INTRODUCTION: The endonasal mucosal or anatomic pathologies could lead to poor functional results and dissatisfaction after rhinoplasty. Although computed tomography (CT) scan has become an integral part of the diagnostic paradigm for patients with pathologies of the paranasal sinuses, the use of CT scan for preoperative evaluation of patients seeking rhinoplasty is up for debate. Our aim in this study was to compare the efficacy of CT scan in diagnosing nasal pathologies with other evaluating tools in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial study, 74 consecutive patients seeking cosmetic rhinoplasty referred to otorhinolaryngology clinic were randomly assigned into three groups based on the perioperative evaluation method: the CT group, the nasal endoscopy group, and the control group (anterior rhinoscopy only). Surgical planning was made according to perioperative findings, and the identified endonasal pathologies were corrected during the surgery. The functional and aesthetic outcomes of the rhinoplasty were assessed by Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) tools before surgery and at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: All outcome measures improved significantly in either group toward one year after rhinoplasty (all with p value <0.05). Subjects in the CT group demonstrated greater improvement in the NOSE, VAS, and ROE compared to other two groups (NOSE: p value = 0.17; VAS: p value = 0.024; ROE: p value = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, perioperative CT is associated with greater patients' satisfaction and quality of life after rhinoplasty compared to either nasal endoscopy or anterior rhinoscopy. A preoperative CT scan may improve the outcomes of rhinoplasty.
Authors: Boris Schulz; Stefan Potente; Stefan Zangos; Ingke Friedrichs; Ralf W Bauer; Matthias Kerl; Thomas J Vogl; Martin M Mack Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Orhan Kemal Kahveci; Murat Cem Miman; Aylin Yucel; Fatih Yucedag; Erdoğan Okur; Ali Altuntas Journal: Auris Nasus Larynx Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 1.863
Authors: Gavin Setzen; Berrylin J Ferguson; Joseph K Han; John S Rhee; Rebecca S Cornelius; Stuart J Froum; Grant S Gillman; Steven M Houser; Paul R Krakovitz; Ashkan Monfared; James N Palmer; Kristina W Rosbe; Michael Setzen; Milesh M Patel Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Joseph K Han; Scott P Stringer; Richard M Rosenfeld; Sanford M Archer; Dole P Baker; Seth M Brown; David R Edelstein; Stacey T Gray; Timothy S Lian; Erin J Ross; Allen M Seiden; Michael Setzen; Travis T Tollefson; P Daniel Ward; Kevin C Welch; Sarah K Wise; Lorraine C Nnacheta Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Amr G Shafik; Hussam Adel Alkady; Gehad Mohamed Tawfik; Ahmed Mostafa Mohamed; Tahany Mohamed Rabie; Nguyen Tien Huy Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-10-03