medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2023, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2023; 33 (2)

Patient satisfaction in closed rhinoplasty and FACE-Q survey outcome values in Hospital ''Dr. Manuel Gea González''

Castillo-Moreno JR, Rendón-Medina MA, Andrade-Delgado L, Apellaniz-Ocampo A, Campos-Gómez K, Mendoza-Morales J

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 61-66
PDF size: 154.64 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The objective of this work is to determine the positive impact of closed rhinoplasty under local anesthesia using the FACE-Q scale for patient satisfaction. A prospective clinical trial protocol that included patients treated for nasal deformity and nasal aesthetic discomfort was designed. The variables studied were age and sex. The variables for statistical analysis were satisfaction with facial appearance, nose satisfaction, nostril satisfaction, appearance-related psychosocial distress, psychosocial function, social function, outcome satisfaction, early symptom recovery, adverse effects, pain, and tolerance. A total of 50 patients were included. Appearance-related psychosocial distress had a mean of 31.04 before surgery versus 19.26 at three weeks (p = 0.00025). The psychosocial function had a mean before surgery of 67.84 versus 86.58 at three weeks (p = 1.62 × 10-10). The social function had a mean before surgery of 64.46 versus 75.26 at three weeks (p = 5.82 × 10-8). Satisfaction with the appearance of the face had a mean of 49.64 versus 72.08 at three weeks (p = 6.26 × 10-16). Satisfaction with the nose had a mean of 36.66 versus 82.14 at three weeks (p = 1.76 × 10-22). Satisfaction with the nostrils had a mean before surgery of 51.24 versus 88.04 at three weeks (p = 1.22 × 10-15). Closed rhinoplasty with local anesthesia and sedation seems to be an effective treatment with excellent patient satisfaction.


REFERENCES

  1. Woodard CR, Park SS. Nasal and facial analysis. Clin Plast Surg 2010; 37 (2): 181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2009.12.006.

  2. Cakir B, Dogan T, Oreroglu AR, Daniel RK. Rhinoplasty: surface aesthetics and surgical techniques. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (3): 363-375. doi: 10.1177/1090820X13478968.

  3. Constantian MB. Closed technique rhinoplasty. Plast Surg 2013; 2: 413-449.e5. do

  4. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures performed in 2019. Int Soc Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019. Available in: https://www.isaps.org/media/pubgf4jc/global-survey-full-report-2019-english.pdf

  5. Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (2_suppl): S1-S30. doi: 10.1177/0194599816683153.

  6. Ponsky D, Eshraghi Y, Guyuron B. The frequency of surgical maneuvers during open rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (1): 240-244. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181dc54da.

  7. Kao R, Rabbani CC, Ting JY, Shipchandler TZ. In-office functional nasal surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2019; 52 (3): 485-495. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2019.02.010.

  8. Vargas G, Biguria R. Cartilage allografts for aesthetic nose surgery: a viable option. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (9): e1859. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001859.

  9. Lopez Moris CB, Golian I, Montes E, Fiameni A. Rhinoplasty and septumplasty under local anesthesia: our experience in the ORL service of Hospital Ramos Mejía. J Otolaryngol ENT Res 2017; 6 (3): 00165. doi: 10.15406/joentr.2017.06.00165.

  10. Sklar M, Golant J, Solomon P. Rhinoplasty with intravenous and local anesthesia. Clin Plast Surg 2013; 40 (4): 627-629. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2013.08.002.

  11. Niechajev I, Haraldsson PO. Two methods of anesthesia for rhinoplasty in outpatient setting. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1996; 20 (2): 159-163. doi: 10.1007/BF02275536.

  12. Metzinger SE, Bailey DJ, Boyce RG, Lyons GD. Local anesthesia in rhinoplasty: a new twist? Ear Nose Throat J 1992; 71 (9): 405-406.

  13. Goktas U, Isik D, Kati I, Atik B, Soyoral L. Effects of lidocaine infiltration on cost of rhinoplasty made under general anesthesia. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22 (6): 2176-2178. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318232414c.

  14. Kotzampasakis D, Piniara A, Themelis S, Kotzampasakis S, Gabriel E, Maroudias N et al. Quality of life of patients who underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty: 100 cases assessed with the Glascow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (9): 2017-2025. doi: 10.1002/lary.26517.

  15. Apaydin F. Rhinoplasty at the global crossroads. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (6): 421-423. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2009.90.

  16. Mohammadshahi M, Pourreza A, Orojlo PH, Mahmoodi M, Akbari F. Rhinoplasty as a medicalized phenomenon: a 25-center survey on quality of life before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2014; 38 (4): 615-619. doi: 10.1007/s00266-014-0323-5.

  17. Zojaji R, Keshavarzmanesh M, Arshadi HR, Mazloum Farsi Baf M, Esmaeelzadeh S. Quality of life in patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2014; 30 (5): 593-596. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393699.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com