Aesthetic Rhinoplasty and Nasal Obstruction: Presentation of Results of a 100-Patient Study by Using NOSE Inventory
- 15 Downloads
The current prospective study is evaluating the nasal symptoms of patients who underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty with the intranasal approach, in a long-term setting.
There is a large amount of the literature about the technique, the possible comorbidities, the aesthetic result, the patient’s psychosocial background, but it is very limited regarding the effect of the operation on nasal function and physiology and this is the setting that this study is focusing on.
Materials and Method
The validated NOSE questionnaire (Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation) was used in 100 patients operated on by surgeons in both the public and private sectors during the period of 2009 and 2016. The results were analyzed statistically by using SPSS.
Classical aesthetic rhinoplasty, without functional interventions (septum or conchas reduction), was found to improve nasal obstruction symptoms postoperatively in various grades: 77% of patients improved, 10% were found unchanged, and 13% reported worsening of their symptoms. Statistical analysis revealed that, in general, the functional outcome is stable with a slight tendency to deteriorate in the following years after operation. Although both genders had improvement in their symptomatology postoperatively, females had a greater improvement than males. Smoking and allergic rhinitis did not appear to be important determinants of the outcome.
Classical aesthetic rhinoplasty appears to improve nasal obstruction symptoms, and this is stable through time. However, limitations apply.
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.
KeywordsRhinoplasty Classical aesthetic rhinoplasty Endonasal approach NOSE Functional outcome
DK, main author, was involved in literature review, and designed and performed the study. TD, co-author was involved in literature review. SK was involved in guidance and contribution with patients who underwent rhinoplasty. PM was involved in guidance and contribution with patients who underwent rhinoplasty.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest with other colleagues, researchers or other third party. The study did not have any commercial interests.
The study was approved by the ethical committee of University of Athens–Attikon University Hospital (protocol number 2443).
There was a written consent form in Greek language.
- 2.Rana RE, Arora BS (2002) History of plastic surgery in India. J Postgrad Med 48:76Google Scholar
- 4.American Academy Of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery AAFPRS. History the father of modern facial plastic surgery. http://www.aafprs.org/patient/about_us/h_father.html. Accessed 08 Jun 2015
- 5.Ziljker TD, Vuyk H, Adamson P (1993) External incisions in rhinoplasty. Hist Rev Face 2:75–86Google Scholar
- 6.Kotzampasakis D, Piniara A, Themelis S, Kotzampasakis S, Gabriel E, Maroudias N, Nikolopoulos T (2017) Quality of life of patients underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty. 100 cases assessed with GBI (Glascow benefit inventory). Laryngoscope 10:10. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26517 (in press) Google Scholar
- 10.Boris MB (2007) Disorders of the nasal valve area. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 6:Doc07Google Scholar
- 16.Carthy M (1990) Plastic surgery, vol 3, 35. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, p 1817Google Scholar
- 21.Thiago B, Francini P, Renata P, Michael S, Richard V (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a quality of life questionnaire: the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation questionnaire. Rhinology 49:227–231Google Scholar
- 24.Karatzanis AD, Fragiadakis G, Moshandrea J, Zenk J, Iro H, Velegrakis GA (2009) Septoplasty outcome in patients with and without allergic rhinitis. Rhinology 47(4):444–449Google Scholar
- 32.Islam S, Yousuf A (2016) A comparative analysis of rhinoplasty open vs endonasal approach—our experience. Imp J Interdiscip Res (IJIR) 2(2):386–393Google Scholar
- 37.Baumann I (2010) Quality of life before and after septoplasty and rhinoplasty. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 9:1–12Google Scholar
- 40.Erdogan BA, Avseren E, Paksoy M, Bora F, Altin G (2013) Assessing quality of life in septorhinoplasty patients with two different instruments. B ENT 9(4):277–283Google Scholar