PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2023; 39(03): 284-291
DOI: 10.1055/a-2034-8162
Original Article

Evidence-Based Medicine: Rhinoplasty Surgical Outcomes

Kyle S. Kimura
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Sam P. Most
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine has become increasingly important in healthcare today by providing a process to examine the highest levels of research and apply them to clinical practice. Integrating the best available evidence to clinical decision making ensures that patients receive the highest level of care based on thoroughly reviewed and validated research. These concepts can also be applied to rhinoplasty, both aesthetic and functional, emphasizing the importance of data-driven decisions to improve clinical care.

Keywords

evidence-based medicine - functional rhinoplasty - aesthetic rhinoplasty - patient-reported outcome measures


Publikationsverlauf

Accepted Manuscript online:
14. Februar 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312 (7023): 71-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shah HM, Chung KC. Archie Cochrane and his vision for evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (03) 982-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (01) 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ciccozzi M, Menga R, Ricci G. et al. Critical review of sham surgery clinical trials: confounding factors analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2016; 12: 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alsarraf R, Larrabee Jr WF, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson Jr CM. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3 (03) 198-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Most SP, Barrera JE, Larrabee WF. Increasing levels of evidence in rhinoplasty: stepping up our role as leaders in the specialty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (03) 162-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buba CM, Patel PN, Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Most SP. The safety and efficacy of spreader grafts and autospreaders in rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46 (04) 1741-1759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brito ÍM, Avashia Y, Rohrich RJ. Evidence-based nasal analysis for rhinoplasty: the 10-7-5 method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (02) e2632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Williams III EF, Lam SMA. A systematic, graduated approach to rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2002; 18 (04) 215-222
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Larrabee Jr WF. Facial analysis for rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1987; 20 (04) 653-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Das A, Spiegel JH. Evaluation of validity and specificity of the Cottle maneuver in diagnosis of nasal valve collapse. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (02) 277-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fung E, Hong P, Moore C, Taylor SM. The effectiveness of modified Cottle maneuver in predicting outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Plast Surg Int 2014; 2014: 618313
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tikanto J, Pirilä T. Effects of the Cottle's maneuver on the nasal valve as assessed by acoustic rhinometry. Am J Rhinol 2007; 21 (04) 456-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Most SP. Trends in functional rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (06) 410-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT. Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (02) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vaezeafshar R, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Repair of lateral wall insufficiency. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (02) 111-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kandathil CK, Spataro EA, Laimi K, Moubayed SP, Most SP, Saltychev M. Repair of the lateral nasal wall in nasal airway obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (04) 307-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yavuzer R, Smirnes S, Jackson IT. Guidelines for standard photography in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 46 (03) 293-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kim CH, Most SP. Photography and photodocumentation for the rhinoplasty patient. Clin Plast Surg 2022; 49 (01) 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
  • 21 Li W, Liang Y, Sun Y. et al. Application of three-dimensional imaging in Asian rhinoplasty with costal cartilage. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (04) 1714-1720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tzou CHJ, Frey M. Evolution of 3D surface imaging systems in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 591-602 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lekakis G, Hens G, Claes P, Hellings PW. Three-dimensional morphing and its added value in the rhinoplasty consult. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (01) e2063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Boyce JM, Eccles R. Assessment of subjective scales for selection of patients for nasal septal surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2006; 31 (04) 297-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hilberg O, Pedersen OF. Acoustic rhinometry: recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl 2000; 16: 3-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hilberg O, Jensen FT, Pedersen OF. Nasal airway geometry: comparison between acoustic reflections and magnetic resonance scanning. J Appl Physiol 1993; 75 (06) 2811-2819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, Hilberg O. Acoustic rhinometry: validation by three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol 2000; 89 (03) 1013-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Isaac A, Major M, Witmans M. et al. Correlations between acoustic rhinometry, subjective symptoms, and endoscopic findings in symptomatic children with nasal obstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 141 (06) 550-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tai CF, Ho KY, Hasegawa M. Evaluating the sensation of nasal obstruction with acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 1998; 14 (09) 548-553
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Naito K, Miyata S, Saito S, Sakurai K, Takeuchi K. Comparison of perceptional nasal obstruction with rhinomanometric and acoustic rhinometric assessment. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001; 258 (10) 505-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ardeshirpour F, McCarn KE, McKinney AM, Odland RM, Yueh B, Hilger PA. Computed tomography scan does not correlate with patient experience of nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (04) 820-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 André RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenité GJ. Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (06) 518-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, Michel MA. Computed tomography technique for evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (04) 240-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Janovic N, Janovic A, Milicic B, Djuric M. Is computed tomography imaging of deviated nasal septum justified for obstruction confirmation?. Ear Nose Throat J 2021; 100 (02) NP131-NP136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jahandideh H, Maleki Delarestaghi M, Jan D, Sanaei A. Assessing the clinical value of performing CT scan before rhinoplasty surgery. Intl J Otolaryngol 2020; 2020: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pawar SS, Garcia GJM, Rhee JS. Advances in technology for functional rhinoplasty: the next frontier. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2017; 25 (02) 263-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Radulesco T, Meister L, Bouchet G. et al. Functional relevance of computational fluid dynamics in the field of nasal obstruction: a literature review. Clin Otolaryngol 2019; 44 (05) 801-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tjahjono R, Singh N. Correlation between nasal mucosal temperature change and the perception of nasal patency: a literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2021; 135 (02) 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gaberino C, Rhee JS, Garcia GJM. Estimates of nasal airflow at the nasal cycle mid-point improve the correlation between objective and subjective measures of nasal patency. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2017; 238: 23-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ottaviano G, Fokkens WJ. Measurements of nasal airflow and patency: a critical review with emphasis on the use of peak nasal inspiratory flow in daily practice. Allergy 2016; 71 (02) 162-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Xavier R, Fokkens WJ. Does Rhinoplasty Improve Nasal Breathing?. Facial plast Surg 2010; 26 (04) 328-332
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Xavier R, Azeredo-Lopes S, Menger DJ, de Carvalho HC, Spratley J. Objective measurement and patient-reported evaluation of the nasal airway: is correlation dependent on symptoms or on nasal airflow?. Clin Otolaryngol 2021; 46 (04) 744-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bermüller C, Kirsche H, Rettinger G, Riechelmann H. Diagnostic accuracy of peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinomanometry in functional rhinosurgery. Laryngoscope 2008; 118 (04) 605-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Fuller JC, Bernstein CH, Levesque PA, Lindsay RW. Peak nasal inspiratory flow as an objective measure of nasal obstruction and functional septorhinoplasty outcomes. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (02) 175-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hopkins C, Gillett S, Slack R, Lund VJ, Browne JP. Psychometric validity of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (05) 447-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Johns MW. Reliability and factor analysis of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Sleep 1992; 15 (04) 376-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP. The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (01) 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Psychometric properties of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes survey: item response theory analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (06) 519-521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Spataro EA, Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Olds CE, Most SP. Correlation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey with psychiatric screening tools. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (12) 1373-1380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Okland TS, Patel P, Liu GS, Most SP. Using nasal self-esteem to predict revision in cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (06) 652-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Perez-Garcia IC, Peñaranda A, Cobo R, Hernandez AV, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Spanish translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey Questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (03) e2153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Battista RA, Ferraro M, Piccioni LO. et al. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) in Italian. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46 (03) 1351-1359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Atallah MR, Milad D, Benamer YH, Saltychev M, Most SP, Moubayed SP. Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the SCHNOS in French. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 48 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Abdelwahab M, Saltychev M, Elkholy NA, Elsisi H, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Arabic validation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcome Survey for Arabic-speaking rhinoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (03) 673e-675e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM. Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20 (05) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Shukla RH, Nemade SV, Shinde KJ. Comparison of visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score in evaluation of post septoplasty patients. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 6 (01) 53-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Rhee JS, Poetker DM, Smith TL, Bustillo A, Burzynski M, Davis RE. Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (03) 437-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Rhee JS, Arganbright JM, McMullin BT, Hannley M. Evidence supporting functional rhinoplasty or nasal valve repair: a 25-year systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 139 (01) 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Spiekermann C, Amler S, Rudack C, Stenner M. The Visual Analog Scale as a comprehensible patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in septorhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42 (03) 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Lee MK, Most SP. A comprehensive quality-of-life instrument for aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty: the RHINO scale. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (02) e611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Bilgin E, Say MA, Baklacı D. Assessment of patient satisfaction with primary septorhinoplasty using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Cureus 2020; 12 (11) e11777
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (2_suppl, suppl); S1-S30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Manahan MA, Fedok F, Davidson C. et al. Evidence-based performance measures for rhinoplasty: a multidisciplinary performance measure set. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147 (02) 222e-230e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Bashour M. History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118 (03) 741-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Popenko NA, Devcic Z, Karimi K, Wong BJF. The Virtual Focus Group. The virtual focus group: a modern methodology for facial attractiveness rating. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (03) 455e-461e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Patel PN, Most SP. Concepts of facial aesthetics when considering ethnic rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2020; 53 (02) 195-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 AlAwadh I, Bogari A, Azhar T. et al. Prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder among rhinoplasty candidates: a systematic review. Ear Nose Throat J 2021; 014556132110565: 1455613211056543
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Veale D, De Haro L, Lambrou C. Cosmetic rhinoplasty in body dysmorphic disorder. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (06) 546-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Lekakis G, Picavet VA, Gabriëls L, Grietens J, Hellings PW. Body dysmorphic disorder in aesthetic rhinoplasty: validating a new screening tool. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (08) 1739-1745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar