Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 987–991 | Cite as

Long-term quality of life changes after primary septorhinoplasty

  • Olcay Cem Bulut
  • Frank Wallner
  • Dare Oladokun
  • Claire Kayser
  • Michaela Plath
  • Eric Schulz
  • Peter Karl Plinkert
  • Ingo Baumann
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Health-related quality of life measurements are gaining in importance in clinical medicine. Little is known about the long-term quality of life changes after septorhinoplasty. This study was designed to analyse the long-term quality of life impacts of septorhinoplasty, using disease-specific instruments—rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) and Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory-17 (FROI-17); as well as a generic instrument—Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36).

Methods

Patients completed the FROI-17, the ROE and the SF-36 preoperatively and at 12 and 60 months postoperatively. General demographic and clinical information (age, gender, allergies, medication, medical and surgical history) were collected from all patients.

Results

We report a significant increase in disease-specific QOL after primary septorhinoplasty (as measured with the ROE & FROI-17) and in two scales of the SF-36 generic instrument (role-functioning physical and mental health) 1 year after surgery. Our patients showed further significant increase in disease-specific QOL (FROI-17) after their primary septorhinoplasty (1 year vs. 5 years postoperatively). SF-36 results showed significant improvements 5 years postoperatively (compared to preoperative scores) in six out of eight scales (physical functioning, role-functioning physical, bodily pain, vitality, social functioning and mental health).

Conclusion

Septorhinoplasty can improve disease-specific and non-disease-specific QOL in the short- and long-term postoperative period. These improvements remain measurable 5 years after surgery.

Keywords

Septorhinoplasty Rhinoplasty Quality of life ROE SF-36 FROI-17 

Notes

Author contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the study. OCB: designed and coordinated the study, participated in the data acquisition and analysis, interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. FW: participated in the data acquisition and analysis, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. DO: participated in data interpretation and revision of manuscript MP, CK and ES: participated in the data acquisition and analysis PKP: participated in the data acquisition and analysis, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content IB: designed and coordinated the study, participated in the data acquisition and analysis, interpreted the data, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Alsarraf, R. (2000). Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 24(3), 192–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bulut, C., Wallner, F., Plinkert, P. K., & Baumann, I. (2014). Development and validation of the functional rhinoplasty outcome inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology, 52(4), 315–319.  https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin13.098.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klassen, A. F., Cano, S. J., East, C. A., Baker, S. B., Badia, L., Schwitzer, J. A., et al. (2016). Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 18(1), 27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulut, O. C., Wallner, F., Plinkert, P. K., Prochnow, S., Kuhnt, C., & Baumann, I. (2015). Quality of life after septorhinoplasty measured with the functional rhinoplasty outcome inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology, 53(1), 54–58.  https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin14.008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellings, P. W., & Nolst Trenite, G. J. (2007). Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope, 117(6), 985–989.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804f8152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meningaud, J. P., Lantieri, L., & Bertrand, J. C. (2008). Rhinoplasty: An outcome research. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 121(1), 251–257.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000293866.57517.d4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saleh, A. M., Younes, A., & Friedman, O. (2012). Cosmetics and function: Quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope, 122(2), 254–259.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.22390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Radulesco, T., Penicaud, M., Santini, L., Thomassin, J. M., Dessi, P., & Michel, J. (2017). Outcomes of septorhinoplasty: A new approach comparing functional and aesthetic results. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.09.002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulut, O. C., Plinkert, P. K., Wallner, F., & Baumann, I. (2016). Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: Rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 273(9), 2569–2573.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-3920-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alsarraf, R., Larrabee, W. F. Jr., Anderson, S., Murakami, C. S., & Johnson, C. M. Jr. (2001). Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: A pilot study. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, 3(3), 198–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Izu, S. C., Kosugi, E. M., Brandao, K. V., Lopes, A. S., Garcia, L. B., Suguri, V. M., et al. (2012). Normal values for the rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 78(4), 76–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faidiga, G. B., Carenzi, L. R., Yassuda, C. C., Silveira, F., do Lago, T., Leite, M. G. J., et al. (2010). Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 76(4), 437–441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rohs, F. R., Langone, C. A., & Coleman, R. K. (2001). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating nutrition training using self-report measures. Journal of Nutrition Education, 33(3), 165–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klassen, A., Jenkinson, C., Fitzpatrick, R., & Goodacre, T. (1996). Patients’ health related quality of life before and after aesthetic surgery. British Journal of Plastic Surgery, 49(7), 433–438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arima, L. M., Velasco, L. C., & Tiago, R. S. (2011). Crooked nose: Outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 77(4), 510–515.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwitzer, J. A., Albino, F. P., Mathis, R. K., Scott, A. M., Gamble, L., & Baker, S. B. (2015). Assessing demographic differences in patient-perceived improvement in facial appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 35(7), 784–793.  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjv066.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freiberg, A., Giguere, D., Ross, D. C., Taylor, J. R., Bell, T., & Kerluke, L. D. (1997). Are patients satisfied with results from residents performing aesthetic surgery? Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 100(7), 1824–1831. (discussion 1832–1823).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bensoussan, J.-C., Bolton, M. A., Pi, S., Powell-Hicks, A. L., Postolova, A., Razani, B., et al. (2014). Quality of life before and after cosmetic surgery. CNS Spectrums, 19(4), 282–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarwer, D. B., Gibbons, L. M., Magee, L., Baker, J. L., Casas, L. A., Glat, P. M., et al. (2005). A prospective, multi-site investigation of patient satisfaction and psychosocial status following cosmetic surgery. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 25(3), 263–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shakespeare, V., & Postle, K. (1999). A qualitative study of patients’ views on the effects of breast-reduction surgery: A 2-year follow-up survey. British Journal of Plastic Surgery, 52(3), 198–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Flanary, C. M., Barnwell, G. M., VanSickels, J. E., Littlefield, J. H., & Rugh, A. L. (1990). Impact of orthognathic surgery on normal and abnormal personality dimensions: A 2-year follow-up study of 61 patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 98(4), 313–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunt, O. T., Johnston, C. D., Hepper, P. G., & Burden, D. J. (2001). The psychosocial impact of orthognathic surgery: A systematic review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 120(5), 490–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baumann, I. (2010). Lebensqualität vor und nach Septum-und Rhinoplastik. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie, 89, (S 01), S35–S45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of OtolaryngologyLeeds General InfirmaryLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations