SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat / 2024 / Volume: 34 Issue: 4

A Questionnaire About Revision Rhinoplasty Among Surgeons

Ağah Yeniçeri(University of Health Science, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Department of Otorhinolaryngology)0000-0002-5024-4009
Oguzhan Oguz(Private Clinic)0009-0002-7019-1386
Melih Çayönü(University of Health Science, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Department of Otorhinolaryngology)0000-0001-5542-1898
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Both surgeons and patients should accept that the need for revision may arise due to the unpredictability of recovery.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging facial aesthetics operations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: A questionnaire was used to obtain the experiences with revision rhinoplasty of 130 surgeons specialising in rhinoplasty.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both surgeons and patients should accept that the need for revision may arise due to the unpredictability of recovery.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Revision · rhinoplasty · nasal

Abstract

Objective: Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging facial aesthetics operations. Failure to meet patient expectations and the emergence of new deformities lead to the need for revision. This article presents the current revision surgery experiences of surgeons specialising in rhinoplasty. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was used to obtain the experiences with revision rhinoplasty of 130 surgeons specialising in rhinoplasty. The demographic characteristics of the surgeons and data regarding revision rhinoplasty were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed, and the results obtained were compared with the literature data. Results: Although 59% (n=77) of the surgeons stated that the revision rates after primary rhinoplasty were between 2% and 5%, the revision rate of 83% (n=108) of the surgeons was between 2% and 10%. The three most common reasons for revision were loss of nasal tip rotation (83%), inadequate hump resection (74%) and nasal axis deviation (71%). Rocker deformity (19.2%), step deformity (20%), skin problems (25%) and radix problems (27%) were less common. Concerning the timing of revision, most surgeons thought that at least one year should elapse after the first operation, and this did not vary according to the localisation of the deformity. Conclusion: The participants of this study reported revision rates between 2% and 10%. The most common reasons for revision were loss of nasal tip rotation, residual dorsal hump, and nasal axis deviation. Both surgeons and patients should accept that the need for revision may arise due to the unpredictability of recovery.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yeniçeri, A., Oguz, O., Çayönü, M. (2024). A Questionnaire About Revision Rhinoplasty Among Surgeons. The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat, Volume: 34 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.26650/Tr-ENT.2024.1576541

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Loyo M, Wang TD. Revision Rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2016;43(1):177-85. google scholar
  2. Hacker S, Pollock J, Gubisch W, Haack S. Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148(3):532-41. google scholar
  3. Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH, Mulder C, Baca M, Renucci JD, et al. Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33(1):31-7. google scholar
  4. Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B. Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132(4):769-76. google scholar
  5. Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, Adamson PA. Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 2011;31(7):775-80. google scholar
  6. Cuzalina A, Qaqish C. Revision rhinoplasty. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012;24(1):119-30. google scholar
  7. Sibar S, Findikcioglu K, Pasinlioglu B. Revision Rhinoplasty after Open Rhinoplasty: Lessons from 252 Cases and Analysis of Risk Factors. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148(4):747-57. google scholar
  8. Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ. Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010;12(5):291-7. google scholar
  9. Paun SH, Nolst Trenité GJ. Revision rhinoplasty: an overview of deformities and techniques. Facial Plast Surg 2008;24(3):271-87. google scholar
  10. Fattahi T. Considerations in revision rhinoplasty: lessons learned. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2011;23(1):101-8. google scholar
  11. Rosenberger ES, Toriumi DM. Controversies in Revision Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2016;24(3):337-45. google scholar
  12. Constantian MB. What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2012;130(3):667-78. google scholar
  13. Bagal AA, Adamson PA. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2002;18(4):233-44. google scholar
  14. Adamson PA, Litner JA. Psychologic aspects of revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2006;14(4):269-77. google scholar
  15. Kamer FM, McQuown SA. Revision rhinoplasty. Analysis and treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;114(3):257-66. google scholar
  16. Spataro E, Piccirillo JF, Kallogjeri D, Branham GH, Desai SC. Revision rates and risk factors of 175 842 patients undergoing septorhinoplasty. JAMA facial plastic surgery 2016;18(3):212-9. google scholar
  17. Thomson C, Mendelsohn M. Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 2007;36(2):130-4. google scholar
  18. Rivkin A. Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty Using Injectable Fillers: A Safety Review of 2488 Procedures. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2021;23(1):6-11. google scholar
  19. Khan M, Sankar T, Shoaib T. Postoperative Fillers Reduce Revision Rates in Rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 2023;5:ojad029. google scholar
  20. Ong AA, Kelly A, Castillo GA, Carr MM, Sherris DA. Characterization of Medical Malpractice Litigation After Rhinoplasty in the United States. Aesthet Surg J 2021;41(10):1132-8. google scholar
  21. Ganesh Kumar N, Hricz N, Drolet BC. Litigation in Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(2):456e-8e. google scholar