DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prevalence of considering revision rhinoplasty in Saudi patients and its associated factors

  • Received : 2019.09.17
  • Accepted : 2019.10.21
  • Published : 2019.12.31

Abstract

Background: Primary rhinoplasty outcomes may not meet individual expectations. Consequently, reoperation may be advocated to improve results. This study examines the prevalence of individuals considering revision rhinoplasty, while identifying the main cosmetic and functional complaints and factors associated. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia using a self-reported online questionnaire distributed through social media channels. The sample included 1370 participants who were all Saudi nationals over the age of 16 who had undergone primary rhinoplasty at least 1 year prior. Results: The prevalence of individuals considering revision rhinoplasty was 44.7%. The primary reason for considering it was the desire for further esthetic improvement in an already acceptable result (50.16%). The most common cosmetic complaints subjectively reported were poorly defined nasal tip (32.35%). The most prevalent nasal function symptom was nasal obstruction (56.9%). Significant factors associated with considering revision rhinoplasty included the physician not understanding the patient's complaints, short consultation time, low monthly income, inadequate information about the expected results, not using computer imaging to predict outcomes, lack of rapport with the surgeon, and inadequate information about the risks and complications. Conclusions: A thorough understanding of patient concerns and expectations, as well as thoughtful consideration of risk factors, may help surgeons achieve more successful outcomes and potentially reduce the incidence of revision rhinoplasties. Level of evidence: III.

Keywords

References

  1. Davis RE, Bublik M (2012) Psychological considerations in the revision rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 28(04):374-379 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1319837
  2. Ambro BT, Wrigh RJ (2008) Psychological considerations in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 24(03):288-292 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1083083
  3. Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR et al (2017) Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156(2_suppl):S1-S30
  4. Alharethy SE (2017) Trends and demographic characteristics of Saudi cosmetic surgery patients. Saudi Med J 38(7):738 https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.7.18528
  5. Bagheri SC, Khan HA, Jahangirnia A, Rad SS, Mortazavi H (2012) An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(4):902-909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.075
  6. Kienstra M (2011) Secondary rhinoplasty: revising the crooked nose. Facial Plast Surg 27(05):491-496 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1288924
  7. Abbas OL (2016) Revision rhinoplasty: measurement of patient-reported outcomes and analysis of predictive factors. Springerplus 5(1):1472 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3166-5
  8. Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Cakli H (2012) Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon's perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(5):322-327 https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941212100507
  9. Warner J, Gutowski K, Shama L, Marcus B (2009) National interdisciplinary rhinoplasty survey. Aesthet Surg J 29(4):295-301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2009.04.005
  10. Zojaji R, Javanbakht M, Ghanadan A, Hosien H, Sadeghi H (2007) High prevalence of personality abnormalities in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(1):83-87 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.027
  11. Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH, Mulder C, Baca M, Renucci JD et al (2013) Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 33(1):31-37 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X12469221
  12. Daniel RK (2009) Middle eastern rhinoplasty in the United States: part I. primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(5):1630-1639 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181babc95
  13. Thomson C, Mendelsohn M (2007) Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 36(2):130-134 https://doi.org/10.2310/7070.2007.0012
  14. Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, Adamson PA (2011) Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 31(7):775-780 https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X11417427
  15. Constantian MB (2002) Differing characteristics in 100 consecutive secondary rhinoplasty patients following closed versus open surgical approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(6):2097-2111 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200205000-00048
  16. Constantian MB (2012) What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(3):667-678 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31825dc301
  17. Loyo M, Wang TD (2016) Revision rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 43(1):177-185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.09.009
  18. Bussi M, Palonta F, Toma S (2013) Grafting in revision rhinoplasty. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 33(3):183
  19. Duron JB, Nguyen P, Bardot J, Aiach G (2014) Rhinoplastie secondaire. In Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Esthetique 59(6):527-541 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anplas.2014.08.007
  20. Vian HNK, Berger CAS, Barra DC, Perin AP (2018) Revision rhinoplasty: physician-patient aesthetic and functional evaluation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 84(6):736-743 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.08.011
  21. Bracaglia R, Fortunato R, Gentileschi S (2005) Secondary rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(4):230-239 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-005-0034-z
  22. Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B (2013) Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):769-776 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a01457
  23. Goudakos JK, Daskalakis D, Patel K (2017) Revision rhinoplasty: retrospective chart review analysis of deformities and surgical maneuvers in patients with nasal airway obstruction-five years of experience. Facial Plast Surg 33(03):334-338 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1598041
  24. Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ (2010) Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(5):291-297 https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2010.62
  25. Hellings PW, Trenite GJN (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117(6):985-989 https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804f8152
  26. General Authority for Statistics. 2018. Bulletin of Individuals and Households' ICT Access and Usage Survey. Available at: https://www.stats.gov.sa/sites/default/files/bulletin_of_individuals_and_households_ict_2018.pdf. [Accessed 7 Oct 2019]
  27. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157-163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.016
  28. Amer MA, Kabbash IA, Younes A, Elzayat S, Tomoum MO (2017) Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the arabic version of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. Laryngoscope 127(11):2455-2459 https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26640
  29. Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size 1. no. November, 15
  30. Jain S, Gupta A, Jain D (2015) Estimation of sample size in dental research. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 1(1):1-6
  31. Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 314(7080):572 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
  32. Bouaoud J, Loustau M, Belloc JB (2018) Functional and aesthetic factors associated with revision of rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open 6(9)
  33. 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. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1596-1605 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001264
  34. Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton GS III, Hellings PW (2016) Evolution of preoperative rhinoplasty consult by computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 32(01):080-087 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1570125
  35. Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS (2010) Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(6):394-398 https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2010.96
  36. Rohrich RJ, Lee MR (2013) External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(2):404-416 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318278d288

Cited by

  1. Serratus anterior plane block for tertiary revision rhinoplasty with rib cartilage harvest vol.73, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110292