Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32(01): 080-087
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570125
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Evolution of Preoperative Rhinoplasty Consult by Computer Imaging

Garyfalia Lekakis
1   Department of ENT, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Peter Claes
2   Department of Electrical Engineering, Medical Image Computing, Leuven, Belgium
,
Grant S. Hamilton III
3   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
,
P. W. Hellings
1   Department of ENT, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
10 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The preoperative consultation in rhinoplasty involves a multitude of actions that are mandatory for the decision-making process: history taking with attention to the symptoms and specific requests of the patient, clinical evaluation of the aesthetics, the functional status of the nose and the patients' motivation for surgery, and acquisition of standardized preoperative photographs. During the last decade, computer imaging or morphing of the preoperative pictures of the nose has become much more common. This part of the consultation allows the surgeon and patient to reach a mutually agreeable set of expectations by demonstrating the planned outcome of rhinoplasty and describing the objectives of surgery. The evolving literature on computer imaging supports that the benefits for both the patients and surgeons seem to outweigh the risks. Indeed, morphing enables the surgeon to precisely explain to the patients the goal of surgery, and to postpone or even cancel surgery in the group of patients that do not appear satisfied with the proposed changes. In addition, patients may feel more prepared for surgery and have a more realistic view of the outcome of the intervention. Presently, computer imaging is progressing from 2D to 3D models, optimizing the surgeons' capacity to perform morphing in the most advantageous manner for both parties.

 The current review provides a state-of-the art analysis on morphing in rhinoplasty, putting morphing into a historic and relevant perspective in clinical practice.

Keywords

computer imaging - morphing - rhinoplasty consult - patient selection
 

  • References

  • 1 Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000; 24 (3) 192-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rankin M, Borah GL, Perry AW, Wey PD. Quality-of-life outcomes after cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (6) 2139-2145 , discussion 2146–2147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sharp HR, Tingay RS, Coman S, Mills V, Roberts DN. Computer imaging and patient satisfaction in rhinoplasty surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116 (12) 1009-1013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Agarwal A, Gracely E, Silver WE. Realistic expectations: to morph or not to morph?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (4) 1343-1351 , discussion 1352–1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chávez AE, Dagum P, Koch RJ, Newman JP. Legal issues of computer imaging in plastic surgery: a primer. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100 (6) 1601-1608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ewart CJ, Leonard CJ, Harper JG, Yu J. A simple and inexpensive method of preoperative computer imaging for rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56 (1) 46-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Behrbohm H, Briedigkeit W, Kaschke O. Jacques Joseph: father of modern facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (5) 300-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hilger PA, Webster RC, Hilger JA, Smith RC. A computerized nasal analysis system. Arch Otolaryngol 1983; 109 (10) 653-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Larrabee Jr WF, Maupin G, Sutton D. Profile analysis in facial plastic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol 1985; 111 (10) 682-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Null RM. Computer imaging: the manufacturer's perspective. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (1) 26-30
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Becker DG, Bloom J. Five techniques that I cannot live without in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2008; 24 (3) 358-364
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Angelos PC, Been MJ, Toriumi DM. Contemporary review of rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (4) 238-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Steiger JD. The rhinoplasty consult. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (5) 393-396
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Thomas JR, Freeman MS, Remmler DJ, Ehlert TK. Analysis of patient response to preoperative computerized video imaging. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 115 (7) 793-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vuyk HD, Stroomer J, Vinayak B. The role of computer imaging in facial plastic surgery consultation: a clinical study. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998; 23 (3) 235-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hopping SB. Image thyself. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (1) 45-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mattison RC. Facial video image processing: standard facial image capturing, software modification, development of a surgical plan, and comparison of presurgical and postsurgical results. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 29 (5) 385-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bronz G. Predictability of the computer imaging system in primary rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1994; 18 (2) 175-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Petit F, Smarrito S, Kron C. Aesthetic surgery: realities of virtuality. On the influence of images, new information and communication technologies, and the internet [in French]. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2003; 48 (5) 324-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rohrich RJ, Janis JE, Kenkel JM. Male rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (4) 1071-1085 , quiz 1086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Berman M. Marketability of computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (1) 59-61
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chatrath P, De Cordova J, Nouraei SAR, Ahmed J, Saleh HA. Objective assessment of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007; 9 (3) 184-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shipchandler TZ, Sultan B, Ishii L , et al. Aesthetic analysis in rhinoplasty: surgeon vs. patient perspectives: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Otolaryngol 2013; 34 (2) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rohrich RJ, Hollier Jr LH, Janis JE, Kim J. Rhinoplasty with advancing age. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (7) 1936-1944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS. Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12 (6) 394-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Moscatiello F, Herrero Jover J, González Ballester MA, Carreño Hernández E, Piombino P, Califano L. Preoperative digital three-dimensional planning for rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010; 34 (2) 232-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cingi CC, Cingi C, Bayar Muluk N. Cingi Steps for preoperative computer-assisted image editing before reduction rhinoplasty. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014; 4 (4) 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Goffart Y. Morphing in rhinoplasty: predictive accuracy and reasons for use. B-ENT 2010; 6 (Suppl. 15) 13-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dayan S, Kanodia R. Has the pendulum swung too far?: trends in the teaching of endonasal rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6) 414-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kalter PO, van der Baan B, Vuyk H. Medicolegal aspects of otolaryngologic, facial plastic, and reconstructive surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1995; 11 (2) 105-110
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Constantinides M. The rhinoplasty consultation and the business of rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2009; 17 (1) 1-5 , v
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gorney M. Claims prevention for the aesthetic surgeon: preparing for the less-than-perfect outcome. Facial Plast Surg 2002; 18 (2) 135-142
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Vuyk HD, Zijlker TD. Psychosocial aspects of patient counseling and selection: a surgeon's perspective. Facial Plast Surg 1995; 11 (2) 55-60
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Avery JK. Good rapport and good record: antidote for litigation. J Tenn Med Assoc 1986; 79 (10) 646
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Adelson RT, DeFatta RJ, Bassischis BA. Objective assessment of the accuracy of computer-simulated imaging in rhinoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 2008; 29 (3) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mahajan AY, Shafiei M, Marcus BC. Analysis of patient-determined preoperative computer imaging. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (5) 290-295
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Koch RJ, Chavez A, Dagum P, Newman JP. Advantages and disadvantages of computer imaging in cosmetic surgery. Dermatol Surg 1998; 24 (2) 195-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pearson DC, Adamson PA. The ideal nasal profile: rhinoplasty patients vs the general public. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (4) 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Papel ID, Park RI. Computer imaging for instruction in facial plastic surgery in a residency program. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988; 114 (12) 1454-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gruber RP. Computer imaging and surgical reality in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (3) 922-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Schoenrock LD. Five-year facial plastic experience with computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (1) 18-25
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Mühlbauer W, Holm C. Computer imaging and surgical reality in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115 (7) 2098-2104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 van Heijningen RI, Mannaerts GH, Blondeel PN, Spauwen PH. PLink, plastic surgery and the Internet. Br J Plast Surg 1998; 51 (2) 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Jorissen M. Rhinoplasty: why do I not use morphing?. B-ENT 2010; 6 (Suppl. 15) 21-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ozkul T, Ozkul MH. Computer simulation tool for rhinoplasty planning. Comput Biol Med 2004; 34 (8) 697-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Koch RJ, Chavez A. Medicolegal aspects of imaging and Internet communications. Facial Plast Surg 1999; 15 (2) 139-144
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Punthakee X, Rival R, Solomon P. Digital imaging in rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33 (4) 635-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bronz G. The role of the computer imaging system in modern aesthetic plastic surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1999; 23 (3) 159-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hamilton III GS. Morphing images to demonstrate potential surgical outcomes. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2010; 18 (2) 267-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Papel ID. Quantitative facial aesthetic evaluation with computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (1) 35-44
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Rohrich RJ, Adams WP, Ahmad J, Gunter J. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Rowe-Jones JM. Rhinoplasty: a view from the United kingdom. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6) 423-425
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hamilton III GS, Carrithers JS, Karnell LH. Public perception of the terms “cosmetic,” “plastic,” and “reconstructive” surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (5) 315-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Adamson PA, Kraus WM. Management of patient dissatisfaction with cosmetic surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1995; 11 (2) 99-104
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Pawar SS, Garcia GJM, Kimbell JS, Rhee JS. Objective measures in aesthetic and functional nasal surgery: perspectives on nasal form and function. Facial Plast Surg 2010; 26 (4) 320-327
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Rhee JS, McMullin BT. Outcome measures in facial plastic surgery: patient-reported and clinical efficacy measures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (3) 194-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar