Aesthetic Rhinoplasty and Nasal Obstruction: Presentation of Results of a 100-Patient Study by Using NOSE Inventory

  • D. KotzampasakisEmail author
  • T. Delistathi
  • S. Kotzampasakis
  • P. Mantalos
Original Article Rhinoplasty



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


Rhinoplasty Classical aesthetic rhinoplasty Endonasal approach NOSE Functional outcome 


Authors Contribution

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.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the ethical committee of University of Athens–Attikon University Hospital (protocol number 2443).

Informed Consent

There was a written consent form in Greek language.


  1. 1.
    Shiffman M (2013) History of cosmetic rhinoplasty. In: Shiffman MA, Di Giuseppe A (eds) Advanced aesthetic rhinoplasty. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rana RE, Arora BS (2002) History of plastic surgery in India. J Postgrad Med 48:76Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jo Roe (1989) The deformity termed ‘pug nose’ and its correction by a simple operation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115(2):156–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Academy Of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery AAFPRS. History the father of modern facial plastic surgery. Accessed 08 Jun 2015
  5. 5.
    Ziljker TD, Vuyk H, Adamson P (1993) External incisions in rhinoplasty. Hist Rev Face 2:75–86Google Scholar
  6. 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. (in press) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeung A, Hassouneh B, Kim DW (2015) Outcome of nasal valve obstruction after functional and aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18:128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulut C, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Baumann I (2014) Development and validation of the functional rhinoplasty outcome inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 52(4):315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross Mobley S, Long J (2016) Extracorporeal septoplasty: assessing functional outcomes using the validated nasal obstruction symptom evaluation score over a 3-year period. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(1):151e–163eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boris MB (2007) Disorders of the nasal valve area. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 6:Doc07Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wexler DB, Davidson TM (2004) The nasal valve: a review of the anatomy, imaging and physiology. Am J Rhinol 18(3):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miman MC, Deliktaş H, Ozturan O, Toplu Y, Akarçay M (2006) Internal nasal valve: revisited with objective facts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134(1):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elwany S, Thabet H (1996) Obstruction of the nasal valve. J Laryngol Otol 110(3):221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palesy T, Pratt E, Mrad N, Marcells GN, Harvey RJ (2015) Airflow and patient-perceived improvement following rhinoplastic correction of external nasal valve dysfunction. AMA Facial Plast Surg 17(2):131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Başer E, Kocagöz GD, Çalim ÖF, Verim A, Yilmaz F, Özturan O (2016) Assessment of patient satisfaction with evaluation methods in open technique septorhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 27(2):420–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carthy M (1990) Plastic surgery, vol 3, 35. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, p 1817Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aufricht G (1943) A few hints and surgical details in rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 53:317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aufricht G (1961) Symposium on corrective rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 28:241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steward MG, David W, Timothy S, Edward W, Bevan Y, Maureen H (2004) Development and validation of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lachanas VA, Tsiouvaka S, Tsea M, Hajiioannou JK, Skoulakis CE (2014) Validation of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale for Greek patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151(5):819–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Magali M, Modina M, Stoll D, Ludovic G (2011) French validation of the NOSE and RhinoQOL questionnaires in the management of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 144(6):988–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindemann J, Tsakiropoulou E, Konstantinidis I, Lindemann K (2010) Normal aging does not deteriorate nose-related quality of life: assessment with “NOSE” and “SNOT-20” questionnaires. Auris Nasus Larynx 37(3):303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Harrill WC, Pillsbury HC, McGuirt WF, Stewart MG (2007) Radiofrequency turbinate reduction: a NOSE evaluation. Laryngoscope 117(11):1912–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mondina M, Marro M, Maurice S, Stoll D, de Gabory L (2012) Assessment of nasal septoplasty using NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(10):2189–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bezerra TF, Stewart MG, Fornazieri MA, Pilan RR, Pinna Fde R, Padua FG, Voegels RL (2012) Quality of life assessment septoplasty in patients with nasal obstruction. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78(3):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Witsell DL, Yueh B, Hannley MT, Johnson JT (2004) Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the nasal obstruction septoplasty effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(3):283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gandomi B, Bayat A, Kazemei T (2010) Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: the nasal obstruction septoplasty effectiveness study. Am J Otolaryngol 31(3):189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vidigal TDA, Haddad FLM, Gregório LC, Poyares D, Tufik S, Bittencourt LRA (2013) Subjective, anatomical, and functional nasal evaluation of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep Breath 17(1):427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O (2012) Cosmetics and function: quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscop 122(2):254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Xavier R (2010) Does rhinoplasty improve nasal breathing? Facial Plast Surg 26(4):328–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Celebi S, Caglar E, Yilmaz B, Develioglu O, Topak M, Is H, Kulekci M (2014) Does rhinoplasty reduce nasal patency? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 123(10):701–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC et al (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76(4):437–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 20(2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Baumann I (2010) Quality of life before and after septoplasty and rhinoplasty. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 9:1–12Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berry RB (1981) Nasal resistance before and after rhinoplasty. Br J Plast Surg 34:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS (2011) Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 77(4):510–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 41.
    Bensoussan Jean-Charles, Bolton Michael A, Pi Sarah, Powell-Hicks Allycin L, Postolova Anna, Razani Bahram, Reyes Kevin, IsHak Waguih William (2014) Quality of life before and after cosmetic surgery. CNS Spectr 19:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sarwer DB, Infield AL, Baker JL et al (2008) Two-year results of a prospective, multi-site investigation of patient satisfaction and psychosocial status following cosmetic surgery. Aesthet Surg J 28(3):245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lazar CC, Clerc I, Deneuve S, Auquit-Auckbur I, Milliez PY (2009) Abdominoplasty after major weight loss: improvement of quality of life and psychological status. Obes Surg 19(8):1170–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cintra W Jr, Modolin ML, Gemperli R et al (2008) Quality of life after abdominoplasty in women after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 18(6):728–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Robin LW (2012) Disease specific quality of life outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 122:1480–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ENT Department“Konstantopouleio” Gen HospitalAthensGreece
  2. 2.Plastic Surgery DepartmentPrivate Hospital “Iatriko Psyhikou”AthensGreece
  3. 3.Aesthetic Plastic Surgery ClinicMetropolitan General Hospital AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations