Morphing as a Selection Tool in the Rhinoplasty Consult: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Despite the recognized value of morphing in the literature, this preoperative tool has never been studied in the context of selection process in rhinoplasty. The main purpose of this article is to identify the use of morphing as a filter for unsuitable patients, the attrition rate from the initial consultation to surgery, and whether patients' appreciation on morphing influence their decision-making process. Three-hundred thirty-four consecutive patients, seeking rhinoplasty, underwent two-dimensional computer imaging and completed a 14-question survey about their opinion on morphing. Based on the presence or absence of patient/physician consensus on the expected outcomes during simulation, patients were divided into accepted or rejected candidates for surgery. Accepted candidates were scheduled for rhinoplasty and subdivided into those who underwent surgery, those who postponed their surgery (static), and those who cancelled their procedure. Their responses to the survey were compared between different patients' categories. Forty-four patients (13.2%) were rejected for rhinoplasty since consensus was not achieved during morphing. From 290 accepted patients, 178 underwent their operation (53.3%), 74 patients (22.1%) postponed their rhinoplasty, and 38 (11.4%) cancelled their surgery. Fifty-seven percent of rejected patients and 42% of the static group were not satisfied with the proposed results of morphing, in contrast with 16% of the operated group. Sixty-four percent of rejected patients, and 47% of the static group were not reassured after morphing, compared with 26% of the operated group. Presence or absence of consensus during morphing can guide the surgeon regarding a given patients' suitability for surgery. Patient satisfaction and reassurance with the morphed images can be a good predictor of patients who will proceed to surgery, calling attention to the value of morphing as a selection tool for surgeons and patients alike.

Keywords

computer imaging - morphing - patient selection - rhinoplasty consult - computer simulation

• References

• 1 Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ. Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (06) 1596-1605
• 2 Joseph AW, Ishii L, Joseph SS. , et al. Prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder and surgeon diagnostic accuracy in facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery clinics. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (04) 269-274
• 3 Picavet VA, Gabriëls L, Grietens J, Jorissen M, Prokopakis EP, Hellings PW. Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (04) 861-868
• 4 Dorfman RG, Purnell C, Qiu C, Ellis MF, Basu CB, Kim JYS. Happy and unhappy patients: a quantitative analysis of online plastic surgeon reviews for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (05) 663e-673e
• 5 Marcus BC. The revision rhinoplasty consult: the art of managing expectations. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (03) 287-289
• 6 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. , et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty executive summary. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (02) 205-219
• 7 Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton III GS, Hellings PW. Evolution of preoperative rhinoplasty consult by computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (01) 80-87
• 8 Hopping SB. Image thyself. Facial Plast Surg 1990; 7 (01) 45-58
• 9 Kalter PO, van der Baan B, Vuyk H. Medicolegal aspects of otolaryngologic, facial plastic, and reconstructive surgery. Facial Plast Surg 1995; 11 (02) 105-110
• 10 Koch RJ, Chavez A, Dagum P, Newman JP. Advantages and disadvantages of computer imaging in cosmetic surgery. Dermatol Surg 1998; 24 (02) 195-198
• 11 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
• 12 Ewart CJ, Leonard CJ, Harper JG, Yu J. A simple and inexpensive method of preoperative computer imaging for rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 56 (01) 46-49
• 13 Bronz G. Predictability of the computer imaging system in primary rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1994; 18 (02) 175-181
• 14 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 (03) 235-243
• 15 Adelson RT, DeFatta RJ, Bassischis BA. Objective assessment of the accuracy of computer-simulated imaging in rhinoplasty. Am J Otolaryngol 2008; 29 (03) 151-155
• 16 Goffart Y. Morphing in rhinoplasty: predictive accuracy and reasons for use. B-ENT 2010; 6 (Suppl. 15) 13-19
• 17 Rohrich RJ, Lee MR. External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (02) 404-416
• 18 Sykes JM. Patient selection in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (02) 173-176 , v
• 19 Thomas JR, Freeman MS, Remmler DJ, Ehlert TK. Analysis of patient response to preoperative computerized video imaging. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 115 (07) 793-796
• 20 Ferreira MG, Santos M, Carmo DOE, Neves JC, Sousa CAE, Datema FR. Rhinoplasty-do patients and surgeons see the same? A double-blind study with 100 randomized patients. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (04) 356-362
• 21 Ende KH, Lewis DL, Kabaker SS. Body dysmorphic disorder. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (02) 217-223 , vii
• 22 Davis RE, Bublik M. Psychological considerations in the revision rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 2012; 28 (04) 374-379
• 23 Levinson W, Pizzo PA. Patient-physician communication: it's about time. JAMA 2011; 305 (17) 1802-1803
• 24 Constantian MB. What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (03) 667-678
• 25 Rowe-Jones JM. Rhinoplasty: a view from the United Kingdom. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (06) 423-425
• 26 Connell BF, Gunter J, Mayer T. , et al. Roundtable: discussion of “the difficult patient”. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2008; 16 (02) 249-258 , viii
• 27 Domanski MC, Cavale N. Self-reported “worth it” rating of aesthetic surgery in social media. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (06) 1292-1295
• 28 Sykes J, Javidnia H. A contemporary review of the management of the difficult patient. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (02) 81-84
• 29 Singh P, Pearlman S. Use of computer imaging in rhinoplasty: a survey of the practices of facial plastic surgeons. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41 (04) 898-904