Adrian Schweigler1, Mathias Tremp2,1, Georges Stergiou3, Valerio Finocchi4, Clara Guardiola Fortuny1, Yves Saban5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, BS, Switzerland. 2. Clinic for Facial, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Praxisklinik Urania, Löwenstrasse 28, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Clinic for Facial, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Praxisklinik Urania, Löwenstrasse 28, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. georges.stergiou@gmail.com. 4. , Rome, Italy. 5. , Nice, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is a challenging procedure, and the ultimate goal is not only to restore the function and youthful appearance, but also to improve the quality of life (QoL). Little is known about the QoL after preservation rhinoplasty (PR). The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PR by using a validated questionnaire. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary PR were included in this prospective cohort single-centre (private) study. Overall, 58 patients (41 female and 17 male patients, mean age 32 ± 9.7 years) were operated on between 2017 and 2021. Patient assessment regarding their outcome was evaluated before surgery and at final follow-up using a validated questionnaire (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire = ROE). Subgroup analyses were performed between the ROE questions and radiological analysis by using the cone-beam computed tomography (CT) before surgery and at final follow-up. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 7.9 months (range = 1-50 months), a high overall patient satisfaction was observed (37.9 ± 9.2 vs. 81.25 ± 14.17, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest improvement in nose appearance, breathing, and self-confidence after surgery. The improvement of subjective breathing (1.471 ± 0.90 vs. 3.1 ± 0.88; p<0.0001) goes in line with an overall improved internal nasal valve (INV) angle (19.88° ± 3.3° vs. 22.04° ± 4.1°, p = 0.0231). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a high patient satisfaction after PR as evaluated by the ROE, which goes in line with aesthetics and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is a challenging procedure, and the ultimate goal is not only to restore the function and youthful appearance, but also to improve the quality of life (QoL). Little is known about the QoL after preservation rhinoplasty (PR). The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PR by using a validated questionnaire. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary PR were included in this prospective cohort single-centre (private) study. Overall, 58 patients (41 female and 17 male patients, mean age 32 ± 9.7 years) were operated on between 2017 and 2021. Patient assessment regarding their outcome was evaluated before surgery and at final follow-up using a validated questionnaire (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire = ROE). Subgroup analyses were performed between the ROE questions and radiological analysis by using the cone-beam computed tomography (CT) before surgery and at final follow-up. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 7.9 months (range = 1-50 months), a high overall patient satisfaction was observed (37.9 ± 9.2 vs. 81.25 ± 14.17, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest improvement in nose appearance, breathing, and self-confidence after surgery. The improvement of subjective breathing (1.471 ± 0.90 vs. 3.1 ± 0.88; p<0.0001) goes in line with an overall improved internal nasal valve (INV) angle (19.88° ± 3.3° vs. 22.04° ± 4.1°, p = 0.0231). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a high patient satisfaction after PR as evaluated by the ROE, which goes in line with aesthetics and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .