Exploring satisfaction and outcomes in rhinoplasty: experience from a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir valley, India

Durfishan Bashir; Mir Sajad Qadri; Rouf Hussain Rather

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231629

Authors

Durfishan Bashir Department of Otorhinolaryngology, GMC Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Mir Sajad Qadri Department of Otorhinolaryngology, GMC Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Rouf Hussain Rather Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231629

Keywords:

Augmentation Rhinoplasty, ROE Questionnaire, Satisfaction, Nasal deformity

Abstract

Background: Augmentation rhinoplasty is a popular yet challenging procedure that aims to improve both the nasal appearance and quality of life of patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the satisfaction and outcome after augmentation rhinoplasty at a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir valley.

Methods: The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Kashmir valley among patients who underwent the procedure using autologous cartilage grafts at the ENT department from October 2021 to December 2021. The sample size was 56. The patients age, gender, pre-operative findings, surgical techniques, post-operative outcomes, complications, and corrective interventions were recorded. The rhinoplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire was used to evaluate the patients' pre and post-operative status, with outcome assessed three months after surgery.

Results: The present study included 56 patients which comprised of 39 (69.64%) males. The mean age of patients was 41±9.6 years. The indication for surgery was a mix of aesthetic and functional reasons in 56% subjects with 78% undergoing a primary surgery. The mean pre-operative score on the ROE questionnaire was 9.21±0.8 which improved to a mean score of 19.56±1.1 at three months after surgery. Overall 75% (42/56) patients reported a post operative ROE score of ≥80%. There was a significant improvement in all domains assessed by the ROE questionnaire, including appearance and function.

Conclusions: Augmentation rhinoplasty can provide satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients with nose deformities with consistent improvement across all domains related to aesthetics and functionality.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Totonchi A, Guyuron B. Rhinoplasty. Plastic Surgery - Principles and Practice. StatPearls [Internet]. 2022;1082–95.

Manhas P, Angral S, Kotwal S. Outcome and Pitfalls of Open Rhinoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;72(1):17–23.

Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ. Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty?. J Plastic, Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71(1):79-84.

Ishii CH. Current update in Asian rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;2(4).

Zhu X, Zhang B, Huang Y. Trends of rhinoplasty research in the last decade with bibliometric analysis. Front Surg. 2023;9.

Bergeron L, Chen PKT. Asian Rhinoplasty Techniques. Semin Plast Surg. 2009;23(01):016–21.

Rollin RK. Rhinoplasty: An Atlas of Surgical Techniques - Google Books; 2002.

Petropoulos I, Karagiannidis K, Kontzoglou G. Our experience in open rhinoplasty. Hippokratia. 2007;11(1):35–8.

Esteves SS, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Almeida JC, Abrunhosa J. Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study☆. Brazilian J Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;83:552-7.

Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV, Lopes AS, Garcia LBS, Suguri VM, et al. Normal values for the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;78(4):76–9.

Xiao H, Zhao Y, Liu L, Xiao M, Qiu W, Liu Y. Functional/Aesthetic measures of patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty: a review. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(10):1057–62.

Vila PM, Jeanpierre LM, Rizzi CJ, Yaeger LH, Chi JJ, Louis S, et al. Comparison of autologous vs homologous costal cartilage grafts in dorsal augmentation rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(4):347-54.

Muslu Ü, Demir E. Development of rhinoplasty: yesterday and today. Med Sci. 2019;23(97):294-301.

JH, Park MH, Oh S, Jin HR. Complications associated with autologous rib cartilage use in rhinoplasty: a meta-analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(1):49–55.

Mahmoudi S, Zadeh MR. Development and Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire: An Analytical Study. World J Plast Surg. 2022;11(2):68–74.

Bilgin E, Say MA, Baklacı D. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Primary Septorhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Cureus. 2020;12(11).

Thapa N, Pradhan B, Adhikari P. Rhinoplasty Experiences in a Tertiary Care Center of Nepal. 2009;13(9):30-3.

Kandathil CK, Patel PN, Spataro EA, Most SP. Examining preoperative expectations and postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty patients: a single-center study. 2021;23(5):375–82.

Kotzampasakis D, Mantalos P, Kotzampasakis S, Danias N, Nikolopoulos T. Assessment of aesthetic results of 100 patients who underwent rhinoplasty—rhinoplasty outcome evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9).

Mianroodi AA, Eslami M, Khanjani N. Interest in rhinoplasty and awareness about its postoperative complications among female high school students. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;24(68):135.

Khan N, Rashid M, Khan I, Sarwar SUR, Rashid HU, Khurshid M, et al. Satisfaction in Patients After Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Cureus. 2019;11(7).

22. Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A Social Media Analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(1):NP1–5.

Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y. Evaluation of preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Recon Surg. 2018;141(3):603–11.

Kotzampasakis D, Piniara A, Themelis S, Kotzampasakis S, Gabriel E, Maroudias N, et al. Quality of life of patients who underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty: 100 cases assessed with the Glascow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(9):2017–25.