A Practical Approach to Rhinoplasty

Adverse Event Incidences following Facial Plastic Surgery Procedures: Incorporating FACE-Q Data to Improve Patient Preparation

BACKGROUND

Before creation and validation of the FACE-Q by Pusic et al., adverse event types and incidences following facial cosmetic procedures were objectively measured and reported by physicians, potentially leading to misrepresentation of the true patient experience. This article analyzes and compares adverse event data from both FACE-Q and recent review articles, incorporating patient-reported adverse event data to improve patient preparation for facial cosmetic procedures.

METHODS

FACE-Q adverse event data were extracted from peer-reviewed validation articles for face lift, rhinoplasty, and blepharoplasty, and these data were compared against adverse effect risk data published in recent Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification and other articles regarding the same procedures.

RESULTS

The patient-reported adverse event data sets and the physician-reported adverse event data sets do contain overlapping elements, but each data set also contains unique elements. The data sets represent differing viewpoints. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes from the FACE-Q provided incidence data that were otherwise previously not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In the growing facial cosmetic surgery industry, patient perspective is critical as a determinant of success; therefore, incorporation of evidence-based patient-reported outcome data will not only improve patient expectations and overall experience, but will also reveal adverse event incidences that were previously unknown. Given that there is incomplete overlap between patient-reported and physician-reported adverse events, presentation of both data sets in the consultation setting will improve patient preparation. Furthermore, use of validated tools such as the FACE-Q will allow surgeons to audit themselves critically.

Evidence-Based Medicine: Secondary Correction of Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the components of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. 2. Assess the deformity. 3. Design a treatment plan for secondary correction of cleft lip nasal deformity. 4. Discuss methods for managing suboptimal outcomes.

SUMMARY

Correction of cleft lip nasal deformity has been addressed in this Maintenance of Certification/Continuing Medical Education series a number of times-a testament to the complexity of the topic. In this addition to the series, the authors provide a principle-based approach toward management of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip nasal deformity with an emphasis on timing intervention, role for intermediate correction, and methods for cleft rhinoplasty after completion of nasal growth.

The Crooked Nose

Correction of a crooked nose is one of the most common requests from patients presenting for rhinoplasty. Both esthetic and functional issues are typically present in patients with this deformity. Rhinoplasty for the crooked nose is particularly challenging because multiple nasal structures, both external and internal, are commonly involved. A major septal deformity is almost always a component of severely deviated noses. The crooked nose results from extrinsic and intrinsic forces that produce distortion of the nasal structures and nasal deviation. The open approach is particularly useful and is the focus of this article.