Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1618–1624 | Cite as

Quality of Life Gain After Septorhinoplasty: An Analysis of Health Utility and Cost Utility Values Associated with Septorhinoplasty

  • Dare Oladokun
  • Andre Baumgart
  • Ingo Baumann
  • Olcay Cem BulutEmail author
Original Article Rhinoplasty



Septorhinoplasty is a common procedure performed in rhinology and facial plastic surgery. Despite this, the health benefits associated with the procedure remain controversial. In this study, a health utility assessment of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty was performed. Health gains associated with the procedure, and the cost at which they were acquired, were also determined.


Sixty-seven patients undergoing septorhinoplasty at a German tertiary-level hospital were included in the study. Study participants completed the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and satisfaction questionnaires before and 12 months after septorhinoplasty. The Short Form six-dimensional (SF-6D) instrument was used to acquire quality-adjusted life year (QALY) values from SF-36 responses, thus allowing estimation of pre- and post-operative health utilities. Health utility gains after septorhinoplasty were determined and combined with cost data to estimate cost per QALY gained.


Patients undergoing septorhinoplasty reported mean pre-operative health utility values of 0.70 pre-operatively and 0.74 post-operatively resulting in health gains of 0.04 QALYs. Patients satisfied with their procedures had significant health utility gains, while dissatisfied patients did not experience any significant gains. The cost of septorhinoplasty to statutory health insurance was €3487.69. When compared to the baseline, the incremental utility ratio for septorhinoplasty was €94,797.30 per QALY gained.


This study successfully estimated the health utilities and gains associated with septorhinoplasty. The findings indicate that the procedure has associated health gains but at a high cost–utility ratio. These values provide a reference point for further much-needed economic evaluations.

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


Septorhinoplasty Health utility Cost utility Quality of life SF-36 SF-6D Economic evaluation 



All authors declare that they did not receive any funding for this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in relation to this study.


  1. 1.
    Balaguer Garcia R, Mompo Romero L, Carrasco Llatas M, Cuesta Gonzalez MT, Dalmau Galofre J (2009) Septoplasty and rhinoplasty, a descriptive study. Acta Otorrinolaringol Espanola 60:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumann I (2010) Quality of life before and after septoplasty and rhinoplasty. Laryngorhinootologie 89(Suppl 1):S35–S45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bulut OC, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Prochnow S, Kuhnt C, Baumann I (2015) Quality of life after septorhinoplasty measured with the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 53:54–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balikci HH, Gurdal MM (2014) Satisfaction outcomes in open functional septorhinoplasty: prospective analysis. J Craniofac Surg 25:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biggs TC, Fraser LR, Ward MJ, Sunkaraneni VS, Harries PG, Salib RJ (2015) Patient reported outcome measures in septorhinoplasty surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roblin DG, Eccles R (2002) What, if any, is the value of septal surgery? Clin Otolaryngol 27:77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrews PJ, Choudhury N, Takhar A, Poirrier AL, Jacques T, Randhawa PS (2015) The need for an objective measure in septorhinoplasty surgery: are we any closer to finding an answer? Clin Otolaryngol 40:698–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cingi C, Songu M, Bal C (2011) Outcomes research in rhinoplasty: body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allergy 25:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Black N (2013) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346:f167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bullinger M (1995) German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 health survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 41:1359–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21(2):271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The University of Sheffield (2016) SF-6D. Accessed 02 June 2017
  14. 14.
    Baumann I (2010) Quality of life before and after septoplasty and rhinoplasty. Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Head Neck Surg 9:Doc06. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhee JS, Arganbright JM, McMullin BT, Hannley M (2008) Evidence supporting functional rhinoplasty or nasal valve repair: a 25-year systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steele TO, Mace JC, Dedhia R, Rudmik L, Smith TL, Alt JA (2016) Health utility values for patients with recurrent acute rhinosinusitis undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery: a nested case control study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 6(11):1182–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soler ZM, Wittenberg E, Schlosser RJ, Mace JC, Smith TL (2011) Health state utility values in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 121:2672–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luk LJ, Steele TO, Mace JC, Soler ZM, Rudmik L, Smith TL (2015) Health utility outcomes in patients undergoing medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis: a prospective multiinstitutional study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 5:1018–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA (2004) Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision : results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 3:103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arnoldner C, Lin VY, Honeder C, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J (2014) Ten-year health-related quality of life in cochlear implant recipients: prospective SF-36 data with SF-6D conversion. Laryngoscope 124:278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K (2004) Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 13:1659–1670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS (2004) Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 7:602–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grutters JP, Joore MA, van der Horst F, Verschuure H, Dreschler WA, Anteunis LJ (2007) Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual Life Res 16:1439–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKenna SP (2011) Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science. BMC Med 9:86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Picavet VA, Gabriels L, Grietens J et al (2013) Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(4):861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ (2015) Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plastics Reconstr Surg 135:1596–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyLeeds General InfirmaryLeedsUK
  2. 2.Mannheim Institute of Public HealthUniversität Medizin MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations