Revision rhinoplasty: measurement of patient-reported outcomes and analysis of predictive factors

Proposal for Perioperative Pharmacological Protocol for the Reduction in Early Complications in Orthorhinoseptoplasty: Five Years of Experience

Septorhinoplasty is a crucial intervention in functional and aesthetic facial surgery. Although rare and usually manageable, complications could lead to disfiguring consequences. There is no universal protocol for perioperative management in the literature. The aim of this article is to analyze the surgical complications in patients who underwent open rhinoseptoplasty and were treated in the perioperative period with the standardized protocol used in our department, in order to propose it as a standardized protocol for a more global application.

METHODS

The patients included underwent rhinoplasty between 2017 and 2022 and were managed with the same treatment protocol. Perioperative and intraoperative data, as well as possible complications, were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were included, 73% of which reported either mild or no complications. Abnormal scar healing was the most frequent complaint (9%), followed by edema (6.2%), nasal dyspnea (3.9%), infection (2.3%), and bleeding (2.3%). No severe complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Our protocol appears to be effective in minimizing complications such as infection and bleeding, although it is very difficult to compare the results with the literature.

Complications Associated with Rhinoplasty: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of studies have investigated the effect of various methods in avoiding complications in rhinoplasty. Our study aims to analyze the connections between various choices in rhinoplasty and the rate of multiple complications by summarizing results in related meta-analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database were associated systematic reviews searched to gather and review the available evidence of different plans and health outcomes in rhinoplasty for this umbrella review.

RESULTS

The study included 14 systematic reviews with 128 meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials. Edema and ecchymosis were the two most investigated outcomes. The implementations of steroid, tranexamic acid, periosteal preservation, external approach in lateral osteotomy, and piezoelectric osteotomy were linked with significantly lower incidence of several complications. Multiple administration of steroids was found to be associated with fewer complications in a prolonged time.

CONCLUSIONS

With summarized evidence of complications related to rhinoplasty, this research can help surgeons to avert patients from suffering complications and optimize cosmetic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 www.springer.com/00266 .

Causes, Prevention, and Correction of Complications of Primary and Revision Septorhinoplasty

Background: Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging esthetic operations as it demands an optimal esthetic and practical outcome. Complications of rhinoplasty may occur intraoperatively or postoperatively during wound healing and contracture.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the complications of septorhinoplasty at King Abdullah Medical City Hospital (KAMCH) and to evaluate the satisfaction scores of the patients and the doctors after primary and revision septorhinoplasty.

Materials and methods: In the last five years, 32 out of 425 patients (7.5%) underwent revision septorhinoplasty to correct complications of the previous operations performed at KAMCH.

This is a retrospective single descriptive study that included Saudi patients aged 18 years and above who underwent primary and revision septorhinoplasty at KAMCH from January 2015 to March 2020. We reviewed the medical records of the patients to identify postoperative complications. Data were analyzed using SPSS statistical program (versions 7 and 8; SPSS Inc, Chicago).

Results: The mean age of the 32 patients who underwent revision septorhinoplasty was 26 ± 8.5 years. Most of the complications involved the nasofrontal angle and the columellolabial angle. Statistically significant improvements in the satisfaction scores of the patients and the doctors were observed before the first surgery, after the first surgery, and after the second surgery (P = 0.000 for each time point).

Conclusion: The satisfaction levels of the patients and the doctors improve after the second surgery.

Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience and Patient Satisfaction

There is minimal information describing the common characteristics among patients seeking primary/revision rhinoplasty. Success is traditionally interpreted from the surgeon's viewpoint, without considering the patient's perspective. The study's aims were to (1) identify/compare anatomic and functional characteristics commonly found in patients seeking primary and revision rhinoplasties; (2) assess patient satisfaction using a survey; and (3) explore whether graft choice (auricular cartilage versus rib cartilage) affects patient satisfaction and outcome in revision rhinoplasty.

Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The nose is at the center of the face and has essential functional and aesthetic properties. Over recent years, rhinoplasty has gained increasing popularity through the influence of "selfies" and social media. As a result, a growing demand for secondary correction has also emerged. Revision rhinoplasty is more complex than primary cases and often requires the use of extranasal grafting material. The authors sought to analyze the indications, techniques, and outcomes after primary and revision rhinoplasty.

METHODS

A total of 245 patients (153 primary cases and 92 revisions) undergoing surgery at the authors' specialized clinic for facial plastic surgery were included. All patients were treated by an experienced facial plastic surgeon according to the authors' established clinic standards. A retrospective data analysis was performed to evaluate the differences between the groups regarding the indications, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Although more patients sought revision surgery for aesthetic reasons alone than isolated functional issues, almost two-thirds of the revision patients had functional and aesthetic problems in combination. Complex reconstructive techniques, extracorporeal septoplasties, and extranasal grafts were more commonly used in revision cases. The occurrence of another revision during the follow-up period was significantly higher after revision surgery compared to primary rhinoplasty cases (primary rhinoplasty, 10.5 percent; revision surgery, 23.9 percent; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences between primary and revision rhinoplasty that must be appreciated by the treating surgeon. The patient should be informed about the increased complexity of the secondary procedure, the possible need for extranasal grafts, and the increased risk of a further revision.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

The Effectiveness of Skeletal Reconstruction in Severe Post-Rhinoplasty Nasal Deformity

BACKGROUND

Revision rhinoplasty in patients with multiple prior surgeries is among the most challenging procedures in facial plastic surgery. Evaluating patient satisfaction in this unique patient population is important in determining which technique is effective.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of total nasal skeletal reconstruction in patients with severe post-rhinoplasty deformity due to multiple previous revision surgeries.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record analysis of ambulatory surgery and hospital databases was performed relating to rhinoplasty patients between April 2014 and December 2018. Patient demographics, surgical technique, and functional and aesthetic outcome assessment data were retrieved. Patients' functional satisfaction was measured with the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) instrument, and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) instrument was used to evaluate cosmetic results.

RESULTS

A total of 253 revision rhinoplasties were extracted. Of these, 25 patients were revision cases with total skeletal reconstruction. The patients had undergone a mean of 3.2 previous rhinoplasties. Mean [standard deviation] preoperative ROE and NOSE scores were 6.36 [3.69] and 80.33 [12.02], respectively. Septum, tip, dorsum, and side walls were reconstructed in all cases. The mean postoperative ROE and NOSE scores after 1 year were 17.27 [4.67] and 53.33 [19.80], respectively, which represented a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Having the knowledge and experience to perform total nasal skeletal reconstruction by rebuilding an unsalvageable nose leads to long-standing satisfactory functional and aesthetic results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Our experience with lipofilling in secondary rhinoplasty, into a new era

Rhinoplasty is a commonly performed cosmetic surgery. Clinicians are facing an increased demand on non-surgical procedures, therefore liquid rhinoplasty is gaining popularity. Given the characteristic of lipofilling to rejuvenate and improve skin texture, fat grafting can be used to reshape the nose in secondary rhinoplasty. Fat was injected in 27 patients with a mean age of 42 years. Volume of fat ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 cc with a mean of 2.2 cc. Patients were seen at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire and plastic surgeons' evaluation. After 1 year follow up, 20 patients were satisfied with the results at 1 year. The aesthetic outcome was noted as very good in 11 patients, good in 9 patients, and poor in 3 patients. Most of the patients had an improvement in skin texture with trophic effect on the skin. No complications were seen in our series According to this study, nasal lipofilling is a safe and efficacious filler in secondary rhinoplasty. However, more studies are needed to assess the indications and limitations of nose lipofilling.

Using Nasal Self-Esteem to Predict Revision in Cosmetic Rhinoplasty

BACKGROUND

It would be useful if existing tools or outcomes measures could predict which patients are at greater risk of revision surgery following rhinoplasty.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine if a single question assessing nasal self-esteem could be utilized to predict which patients are at greatest risk of revision surgery following rhinoplasty.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of 148 patients who underwent cosmetic rhinoplasty. Results of pre- and postoperative Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey questionnaires and rates of revision or patient-initiated revision discussions (RD) were collected. Patients were stratified based on answers to Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey question 5 (SQ5), "Decreased mood and self-esteem due to my nose."

RESULTS

Of the 148 patients included in the analysis, 72.9% were women, and the mean age was 30.9 (15-59, standard deviation = 10.3) years. Those patients who selected 4 or 5 on SQ5 had an overall revision rate of 16.7% and 18.8%, respectively, and a RD rate of 27.8% and 31.25%, respectively. Those patients who selected 0 through 3 on SQ5 had an overall revision rate of 0% and an overall RD rate of 10.4%. Only SQ5 was predictive of revision and RD on logistic regression analysis (P = 0.0484 and P = 0.0257) after Bonferroni correction.

CONCLUSIONS

SQ5 appears to offer a useful adjunct to guide surgical management of the cosmetic rhinoplasty patient. Those patients who reported worse nasal self-esteem and associated mood preoperatively were more likely to request and undergo revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Development and Assessment of a Video-Based Intervention to Improve Rhinoplasty Informed Consent

There has been a growing interest in improving the informed consent process to ensure patients truly understand the benefits, risks, and alternatives of their procedures. Herein, we sought to describe the production of an educational video to supplement the traditional rhinoplasty informed consent process. Additionally, we evaluate satisfaction and risk recall among prospective rhinoplasty patients who participated in the video-assisted informed consent process. One author attended 30 rhinoplasty consultations where informed consent was performed and generated 65 questions related to the benefits, risks, alternatives, and general knowledge of rhinoplasty operations. A video of the senior author answering these questions was filmed and edited to 25 minutes. Prospective rhinoplasty patients watched the video before their initial consultation and were asked to complete two surveys assessing their satisfaction with the video-assisted process as well as their ability to recall risks discussed in the video. Understandability and actionability of the video was assessed by three independent reviewers using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. Postvideo surveys were completed by 40 patients. Patients strongly agreed that the video informed them about rhinoplasty risks and benefits (4.90/5.00), effectively answered their questions and/or concerns (4.78/5.00), and provided adequate information before surgery (4.85/5.00). Participants strongly recommended that all prospective patients watch the video prior to surgery (4.97/5.00). Participants on average correctly answered 4.00 ± 0.877 out of five risk recall questions. There was no statistically significant difference in risk recall performance between college graduates (4.19 ± 0.602) and those who did not graduate college (3.79 ± 1.08), p = 0.076. No significant correlation was found between patient age and recall performance (r = -0.011), p = 0.943. The overall mean understandability and actionability scores for the video were 100%. Video-assisted informed consent for rhinoplasty may enhance and overcome limitations to the traditional verbal consent process by ensuring comprehensive, standardized, and readily understandable information.

Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: The impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention

OBJECTIVES

A subset of patients who require revision rhinoplasty will change surgeons for their second procedure. We sought to investigate the rate of surgeon change and identify associated predictors using a population-based, ambulatory surgery database.

METHODS/STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective review, 9172 rhinoplasty procedures over a 5-year period were analyzed using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (SASD). We identified 380 patients who had at least two rhinoplasty procedures between 2009 and 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of patients changing surgeons for their second documented rhinoplasty.

RESULTS

Among the 380/8531 (4.4%) patients who underwent a revision rhinoplasty, 117/380 (30.8%) patients changed surgeons for their subsequent procedure within a 5-year period. Multivariable logistic regression identified a lower likelihood of surgeon change in patients undergoing functional or cosmetic cartilage grafting procedures (OR 0.342, 95%CI 0.155-0.714, P = .006) and in patients who self-paid for their procedure (OR 0.476, 95%CI 0.225-0.984, P = .048). One hundred twenty-four patients underwent a cosmetic revision rhinoplasty and were twice as likely to change surgeons as those who underwent functional revision rhinoplasty (OR 2.042 95%CI 1.046-4.050, P = .038). Time elapsed (>2 years) was positively correlated with likelihood of surgeon change (OR 1.236, 95%CI 1.153-1.333, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, 30.8% of patients changed surgeons for their revision rhinoplasty. Cartilage grafting at the time of index procedure and cash payment correlated with a decreased likelihood of surgeon change. Patients were more likely to change surgeons with increased time elapsed or for an aesthetic revision. Clarifying features associated with surgeon change may help improve patient satisfaction and retention.

A Comparative Health Utility Value Analysis of Outcomes for Patients Following Septorhinoplasty With Previous Nasal Surgery

Importance

Using health utility values (HUVs) as an outcome measure for surgical procedures, including rhinoplasty, allows for a standardized measurement of the qualitative and financial benefit of that procedure on overall health.

Objective

To use Euroqol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D)-derived HUVs to evaluate nasal obstruction outcomes following surgery between primary rhinoplasty (PSRP) and rhinoplasty with previous nasal surgery (RNS) in a prospective cohort study.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single-institution prospective cohort study between 2013 and 2017 was carried out including 185 patients who underwent RNS before functional rhinoplasty and 278 patients who underwent PSRP for nasal obstruction. The analysis was carried out between December 2018 and February 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients in the RNS cohort and PSRP cohort who completed the EQ-5D questionnaire immediately prior to surgery and postoperatively at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months were included in the study. The EQ-5D scores were converted to HUV scores and compared to evaluate for improvement in health status following surgery.

Results

Of the 185 patients in the RNS cohort, 97 (52%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 42.6 (13.4) years. Of the 278 in the PSRP cohort, 156 (55%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 36.0 (15.8) years. Both cohorts experienced significant improvement in HUV postoperatively. The mean (SD) HUV values were decreased in the RNS cohort versus the PSRP cohort both preoperatively (0.85 [0.16] versus 0.89 [0.14]) and postoperatively at 1 year (0.92 [0.14] versus 0.94 [0.11]); however, the difference in HUV was not statistically significant after 6 months postoperatively. Patients in the RNS cohort were typically older (76 [41%] older than 40 years vs 84 [31%], P = .02) and more likely to have sleep apnea (31 [19%] vs 24 [10%], P = .01) than in the PSRP cohort. On multivariable analysis, the use of spreader grafts and alar rim grafts in the PSRP cohort was significantly associated with improved HUV at 12 months. (r = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01, P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients with a history of prior nasal surgery may represent a unique cohort when assessing health utility outcomes. Euroqol 5-dimension questionnaire-derived HUVs are a valid predictor of outcomes in all patients who undergo septorhinoplasty. Although outcomes were significantly improved for both cohorts, previous surgical history should be considered when performing cost utility analysis on the benefits of functional rhinoplasty.

Level of Evidence

3.

Health Utility Values as an Outcome Measure in Patients Undergoing Functional Septorhinoplasty

Importance

By measuring health utility values (HUVs) for patients with nasal obstruction after septorhinoplasty, the association of nasal congestion with overall health can be measured and the functional outcomes of septorhinoplasty can be determined.

Objective

To use the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire to evaluate nasal obstruction outcomes after septorhinoplasty and to determine HUVs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent septorhinoplasty for nasal obstruction at a single institution by a single surgeon from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017. Participants completed the EQ-5D questionnaire immediately before surgery and postoperatively at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months. The EQ-5D scores were converted to HUVs using population-based data for individuals with chronic diseases. Data were analyzed from May 1 through December 31, 2018.

Exposure

Functional septorhinoplasty.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Preoperative and postoperative EQ-5D scores were compared to evaluate improvement in overall health after septorhinoplasty.

Results

A total of 463 patients (53.8% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.7] years) who underwent septorhinoplasty and completed EQ-5D surveys at baseline and postoperatively were included in the study population. Overall mean (SD) preoperative HUV was 0.872 (0.01), compared with 1.00 for those with a perfect state of health. On univariate analysis, female sex (mean [SD] HUV, 0.853 [0.01]; P = .004), previous nasal surgery (mean [SD] HUV, 0.85 [0.16]; P = .02), previous septoplasty (mean [SD] HUV, 0.88 [0.15]; P = .02), and previous sinus surgery (mean [SD] HUV, 0.79 [0.20]; P = .009) were associated with significantly lower baseline HUVs. On multivariate regression including these variables, only previous septoplasty was significantly associated with a positive change in mean (SD) HUV (0.88 [0.15] vs 0.85 [0.16]; P = .02). Mean (SD) HUV was significantly improved at 2 months postoperatively to 0.91 (0.14; P = .001) and remained significantly improved from baseline at 12 months, at 0.93 (0.13; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Nasal obstruction is associated with significant detriment to overall health, in line with other chronic conditions affecting the US population. Functional septorhinoplasty appears to substantially improve overall health, as measured by HUV, in an immediate and sustained fashion.

Level of Evidence

3.

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

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

Pediatric Rhinoplasty: A national surgical quality improvement program analysis

OBJECTIVES

Rhinoplasty is commonly performed in children with congenital anomalies and resultant nasal deformity causing airway obstruction. Little is known regarding patient factors or perioperative sequelae. We define demographic characteristics and perioperative complications for children undergoing rhinoplasty within a large national cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of children aged ≤ 18 years undergoing rhinoplasty utilizing data from the 2012 to 2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric public use file.

METHODS

All children who underwent rhinoplasty were identified. Postoperative complications were defined as 30-day postoperative infection, unplanned readmission and reoperation, and death. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of complications. Subgroup analysis was performed based on child age (age < 5 years vs. 5-13 years vs. ≥ 14 years).

RESULTS

Of 1,378 children undergoing rhinoplasty, 21(1.52%) children experienced complications, with the most common being unplanned readmission. Younger children were more likely to experience complications (3.79% aged < 5 years vs. 0.66% aged ≥ 14 years; P = 0.001). Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, we observed a 61% decreased odds of complication with each age group (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.19, 0.77; P = 0.007). Younger children were more likely to be male (56.2% male aged < 5 years vs. 46.6% male aged ≥ 14 years; P = 0.011), have developmental delay (11.7% aged < 5 years vs. 3.65% aged ≥ 14 years; P < 0.001), and have craniofacial abnormalities (73.2% aged < 5 years vs. 42.1% aged ≥ 14 years; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Children undergoing rhinoplasty experience few major complications, with the most common being unplanned readmission. Younger children are at greater risk and are more likely to be male with craniofacial abnormalities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 129:494-499, 2019.

Functional and Aesthetic Factors Associated with Revision of Rhinoplasty

Background

Surgical revision rate of rhinoplasty is from 5% to 15% in literature. The aims of our study were to define the rate and the predictive factors for surgical revision of rhinoplasty.

Methods

We have realized a single-center case/control study including 62 patients who underwent surgical revision among 732 patients who underwent closed rhinoplasty between 2005 and 2015. Data of each rhinoplasty were collected from medical records and photographs. Statistical analyses were used.

Results

The surgical revision rate was 8.6%. After multivariate analysis, 4 factors were statistically significant and independently associated with surgical revision: "preexisting respiratory functional disorder" [odds ratio OR = 3.30; 95% CI (1.47-7.76); P = 0.004], "wide nasal bone and side walls" [OR = 3.94; 95% CI (1.49-11.25); P = 0.007], "deviated nasal bone and side walls" [OR = 2.68; 95% CI [1.14-6.58]; P = 0.02] and the use of camouflage grafts [OR = 0.26; 95% CI [0.07-0.89]; P = 0.04].

Conclusions

Closed rhinoplasties have similar revision rate to open techniques. Revision surgeries are justified by functional or aesthetic disorders. The interests of this study are to better inform patients and to adapt operative management. We provide here some recommendations with focus on the keys to successful rhinoplasty surgery.