Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 1014–1020 | Cite as

Definition of “Gender Angle” in Caucasian Population

  • Mauro BaroneEmail author
  • Annalisa Cogliandro
  • Rosa Salzillo
  • Emile List
  • Vincenzo Panasiti
  • Stefania Tenna
  • Paolo Persichetti
Innovative Techniques Rhinoplasty



The goal of this study report is to define the “gender angle,” a new angle which represents the masculine or feminine nasal shape, for performing a gender-oriented rhinoplasty. The use of the “gender angle” in Caucasian patients will help the plastic surgeon in the search for a suitable nose for the patient’s face and above all for the search for maximum patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

The study population was obtained from Caucasian patients who had undergone rhinoplasty between January 1986 and September 2016 at our department. Patients answered the Italian version of the FACE-Q outcome instrument on post-rhinoplasty satisfaction with their nose. Anthropometric measurements were taken retrospectively by AutoCAD for MAC on a photograph of the profile view taken postoperatively at the last follow-up.


A total of 1774 (706 male and 1068 female) patients satisfied the inclusion criteria and were finally enrolled in this study. We identified a gender-specific angle ranging from 168° to 182° for the male nose and from 160° to 178° for the female nose. We subdivided all study patients into 3 ranges of angles as follows: male nose, range 1 = 168°–172°, range 2 = 173°–177°, range 3 = 178°–182°; female nose, range 1 = 160°–166°, range 2 = 167°–171°, range 3 = 172°–178°. All study patients completed the FACE-Q rhinoplasty postoperative module. Analysis was performed of the FACE-Q results and the angle obtained for each nose. The most satisfactory angle range for male patients was range 3 (P = 0.01) and for the female patients was range 2 (P = 0.01).


The “gender angle” might be a parameter that effectively provides the optimal cosmetic result for male and female patients who undergo rhinoplasty.

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 -


Patient satisfaction Quality of life Nose Rhinoplasty Nasal angle 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University. This article contains studies on human participants performed by any of the authors, and each subject provided informed written consent before participating in the study.


  1. 1.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2013) Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(6):1078e–1079eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Cagli B, Persichetti P (2015) FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:272–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cogliandro A, Barone M, Persichetti P (2017) Italian linguistic validation of the FACE-Q instrument. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 19(4):336–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures following transsexual surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):700–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2017) Role of rhinoplasty in transsexual patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 41(3):700–713Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2013) Rhinoplasty: a cross cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):664e–665eCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Aronica R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) Linguistic validation of the “FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module” in Italian. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(3):1771–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA, Baker SB, Badia L, Schwitzer JA, Pusic AL (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18(1):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiBernardo BE, Adams RL, Krause J, Fiorillo MA, Gheradini G (1998) Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiSaia JP, Ptak JJ, Achauer BM (1998) Digital photography for the plastic surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galdino GM, Swier P, Manson PN, Vander Kolk CA (2000) Converting to digital photography: a model for a large group or academic practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galdino GM, Vogel JE, Vander Kolk CA (2001) Standardizing digital photography: it’s not all in the eye of the beholder. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:1334–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krause JL (2003) Digital photographic standards. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1177–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Price MA, Goldstein GD (1997) The use of a digital imaging system in a dermatology surgery practice. Dermatol Surg 23:31–32Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhodes ND, Southern SJ (2002) Digital operation notes: a useful addition to the written record. Ann Plast Surg 48:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yavuzer R, Smirnes S, Jackson IT (2001) Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 46:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Persichetti P (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. (Epub ahead of print)
  19. 19.
    Springer IN, Zernial O, Nölke F, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo PA, Terheyden H, Wolfart S (2008) Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morrison SD, Vyas KS, Motakef S, Gast KM, Chung MT, Rashidi V, Satterwhite T, Kuzon W, Cederna PS (2016) Facial feminization: systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:1759–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Habal MB (1990) Aesthetics of feminizing the male face by craniofacial contouring of the facial bones. Aesthet Plast Surg 14:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hage JJ, Becking AG, de Graaf FH, Tuinzing DB (1997) Gender-confirming facial surgery: considerations on the masculinity and femininity of faces. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1799–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dempf R, Eckert AW (2010) Contouring the forehead and rhinoplasty in the feminization of the face in male-to-female trans-sexuals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noureai SA, Randhawa P, Andrews PJ, Saleh HA (2007) The role of nasal feminization rhinoplasty in male-to-female gender reassignment. Arch Facial Plast Surg 9:318–320Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Altman K (2012) Facial feminization surgery: current state of the art. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 41:885–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bartlett SP, Wornom I III, Whitaker LA (1991) Evaluation of facial skeletal aesthetics and surgical planning. Clin Plast Surg 18:1–9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures following transsexual surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):700–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carvalho B, Ballin AC, Becker RV, Berger CA, Hurtado JG, Mocellin M (2012) Rhinoplasty and facial asymmetry: analysis of subjective and anthropometric factors in the Caucasian nose. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 16:445–451Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Choi YD, Kim Y, Park E (2017) Patient-specific augmentation rhinoplasty using a three-dimensional simulation program and three-dimensional printing. Aesthet Surg J 37(9):988–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berger CA, Freitas Rda S, Malafaia O, Pinto JS, Macedo Filho ED, Mocellin M, Fagundes MS (2015) Prospective study of the surgical techniques used in primary rhinoplasty on the Caucasian nose and comparison of the preoperative and postoperative anthropometric nose measurements. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 19:34–41Google 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.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery UnitCampus Bio-Medico University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Universitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations