Journals / Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi / 2017 / Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 3

Kulak Burun Boğaz Hekimlerinin Yüz Plastik ve Burun Cerrahisindeki Yaklaşımlarının Değerlendirilmesi: Anket Çalışması

Assessment of Approaches of Otorhinolaryngologists in Facial Plastic and Nasal Surgery: A Survey Study

Pages
129–135
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Although this study provides morevaluable data for determining the current status, furtherstudies with larger number of surgeons are required.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To assess approaches and experiences of otorhinolaryngologists in facial plastic and nasal surgery.Methods: In total, 234 surgeons (191 males and 43 females; average age, 37.22±8.4 years; age range, 26-63 years) were included.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All participants were given a questionnaire comprising 22 multiple choice and closed-ended questions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although this study provides morevaluable data for determining the current status, furtherstudies with larger number of surgeons are required.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To assess approaches and experiences of otorhinolaryngologists in facial plastic and nasal surgery.Methods: In total, 234 surgeons (191 males and 43 females; average age, 37.22±8.4 years; age range, 26-63 years) were included. All participants were given a questionnaire comprising 22 multiple choice and closed-ended questions. All responses to the questionnaires were analyzed.Results: Of 234 participants, 42 (17.9%) were residents and 192 (82.1%) were specialists in otorhinolaryngology. The most challenging cases in rhinoplasty were crooked nose (33.8%), ideal nasal dorsum (18.8%), revision cases (13.2%), and skin deformities (11.1%). The photodocumentation rate by surgeonsbefore and after procedures of facial plastic surgerywas 86.3%, whereas the intraoperative photodocumentationrate by surgeons was 47%. The mostcommon facial plastic surgery procedures other thanrhinoplasty were otoplasty (68.4%), filler-Botox-fatinjections (20.5%), and mentoplasty (18.4%).Conclusion: This survey study is quite important becauseit assesses approaches of otorhinolaryngologists infacial plastic surgery. Although this study provides morevaluable data for determining the current status, furtherstudies with larger number of surgeons are required.

Özet

Amaç: Kulak burun boğaz (KBB) hekimlerinin yüz plastik cerrahisi (YPC) ve burun cerrahisindeki yaklaşımlarını ve deneyimlerini değerlendirmek.Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 234 hekim (191 erkek, 43 kadın; ortalama yaş 37.22±8.4 yıl, yaş aralığı 26-63 yıl) katıldı. Katılımcılara, çoktan seçmeli ve kapalı uçlu toplam 22 sorudan oluşan anket verildi. Anketlere verilen yanıtlar analiz edildi. Bulgular: Katılımcıların 42'si (%17.9) asistan iken 192'si (%82.1) uzman idi. Rinoplasti yaparken en çok zorlanılan durum eğri burun (%33.8), ideal dorsum (%18.8), revizyon vakalar (%13.2) ve cilt problemleri (%11.1) idi. YPC girişimi öncesi ve sonrası hastalarıfotodokümante eden hekim oranı %86.3 iken, YPC ameliyatlarında intraoperatif görüntüleri dokümante eden hekim oranı ise %47 idi. Rinoplasti dışında hekimlerin uyguladıkları YPC girişimleri sırasıyla otoplasti (%68.4), dolgu-botoks-yağ uygulaması (%20.5) ve mentoplasti (%18.4) idi. Sonuç: Bu anket çalışması, KBB hekimlerinin YPC uygulamalarındaki yaklaşımları değerlendirmesi açı- sından oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışma, güncel durum tespiti konusunda yararlı bilgiler sunsa da, daha fazla hekimin katıldığı çalışmalara gereksinim vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

APAYDIN, F., ALTINTAŞ, A., SÖZEN, T., KAYABAŞOĞLU, G., YEĞİN, Y., ÇELİK, M., YÜCEL, Ö. T. (2022). Kulak Burun Boğaz Hekimlerinin Yüz Plastik ve Burun Cerrahisindeki Yaklaşımlarının Değerlendirilmesi: Anket Çalışması. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi, Cilt: 55 - Sayı: 3, 129–135. https://ajindex.com/articles/640224

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Dokuzlar U, Miman MC, Denizoğlu İİ, Eğrilmez M. Opinions of Otorhinolaryngology Residents about Their Education Process. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 53: 100-7
  2. Puram SV, Kozin ED, Sethi R, Alkire B, Lee DJ, Gray ST, et al. Impact of resident surgeons on procedure length based on common pediatric otolaryngology cases. Laryngoscope 2015; 125: 991-7. [CrossRef ] 4. Cabrera-Muffly C, Bryson PC, Sykes KJ, Shnayder Y. Free online otolaryngology educational modules: a pilot study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 141: 324-8. [CrossRef ] 5. Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank: Statistics, 2015. The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery website. http://www. surgery.org/media/statistics. Accessed April 1, 2016. [CrossRef ] 6. Pollei TR, Barrs DM, Hinni ML, Bansberg SF, Walter LC. Operative time and cost of resident surgical experience: effect of instituting an otolaryngology residency program. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 148: 912-8. [CrossRef ] 7. Vieira BL, Hernandez DJ, Qin C, Smith SS, Kim JY, Dutra JC. The impact of resident involvement on otolaryngology surgical outcomes. Laryngoscope 2016; 126: 602-7. [CrossRef ] 8. Sethi RK, Kozin ED, Remenschneider AK, Lee DJ, Gliklich RE, Shrime MG, et al. Otolaryngology-specific emergency room as a model for resident training. Laryngoscope 2015; 125: 99-104. [CrossRef ] 9. Lechien JR, Huet K, Finck C, Khalife M, Fourneau AF, Delvaux V, et al. Validity and reliability of a French version of reflux symptom index. J Voice 2017; 31: 512.e1-512.e7. [CrossRef ] 10. Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 2002; 16: 274-7. [CrossRef ] 11. Mendez A, Seikaly H, Ansari K, Murphy R, Cote D. High definition video teaching module for learning neck dissection. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 25: 43-7. [CrossRef ] 12.
  3. Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Cakli H. Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon’s perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2012; 121: 322-7. [CrossRef ] 14. Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS. Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77: 510-5. [CrossRef ] 15. Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ. Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facia