medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3186 (Electronic)

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Acta Médica 2022; 23 (1)

Subjective evaluation of rhinoplasty results in complex cases according to a panel of experts

Gálvez CJC, Ortega LM, Dávila SBH

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page:
PDF size: 282.55 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Evaluation of the aesthetic outcome of a rhinoplasty has a high degree of subjectivity, even more if complex nasal deformities are involved. No tool proposed by science has showed certainty or superiority. The expert panel is used precisely when there is no conclusive method to make a diagnosis, to determine the effectiveness of a procedure, or to evaluate outcomes.
Objective: To assess the aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasties of complex cases through the subjective evaluation of a panel of experts.
Methods: A descriptive, analytical and cross-sectional study was carried out with 133 patients operated on according to the protocol for the treatment of complex nasal deformities in Hermanos Ameijeiras Clinical-Surgical Hospital.
Results: A marked reduction was observed in the mean scores of all the parameters evaluated between the pre- and postoperative periods. Regarding aesthetic index, the preoperative results were 3.6 (from fair to poor appearance) to 1.7 (from very good to good appearance) in the postoperative period. Regarding the origin of the deformity, the best results were obtained in primary nasoseptal deviations, with a postoperative index of 1.1. There was agreement between the two groups of judges regarding all categories evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, except for frontal symmetry.
Conclusions: The score given by the expert panel allowed to conclude that the results of applying the protocol for the treatment of complex nasal deformities are favorable.


REFERENCES

  1. Villanueva N, Afrooz P, Carboy J, Rohrich R. Nasal Analysis: Considerations for Ethnic Variation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019[acceso: 08/05/2020];143(6):1179e-88e. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31136477/

  2. Bohluli B. Esthetic Rhinoplasty in the multiply operated nose. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019[acceso: 03/03/2019];77(1466):e1-e13. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30946808/

  3. Friedman O, Cekic E, Gunel C. Functional rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am. 2017[acceso: 20/06/2019];25:195-9. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28340650/

  4. Sharma V, Bella H, Cadier M, Pigott R, Goodacre T, Richard B. Outcomes in facial aesthetics in cleft lip and palate surgery: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesth Surg. 2012[acceso: 18/07/2019];65:1233-45. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22591614/

  5. Mosmuller D, Don Griot J, Bijnen C, Kramer G, Prahl C. The Asher McDade aesthetic index in comparison with two scoring systems in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2015[acceso: 15/07/2019];26:1242-5. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26080166/

  6. Campbel A, Restrepo C, Deshpande G. Validation of unilateral cleft lip surgical outcomes evaluation scale for surgeons and laypersons. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017[acceso: 20/04/2020];5(9):e1472. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5640349/

  7. McDade C, Roberts C, Shaw W. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearence in patients with cleft of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991[acceso: 13/04/2020];4(28):385-90. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1742308/

  8. Mercado A, Russell K, Daskalogiannakis J, Hathaway R, Semb B, Ozawa T. The Americleft project: a proposed expanded nasolabial appearance yardstick for 5 to 7 year-old patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palat Craniofac J. 2016[acceso: 13/04/2020];53:30-7. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25844562/

  9. Gálvez Chávez JC. Deformidades nasales complejas. Protocolización de la asistencia médica. Resultados en los primeros 5 ańos de su aplicación. La Habana, Cuba: Editorial Ciencias Médicas; 2012. pp. 277-83.

  10. Darrach H, Ishii L. Assessment of the influence of other-race effect on visual attention and perception of attractiveness before and after rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019[acceso: 28/05/2021];21(2):96-102. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439802/

  11. Bonanthaya K, Shetty P, Fudalej P, Rao D, Bitra S, Pabari M, et al. An anatomical subunit-based outcome assessment scale for bilateral cleft lip and palate. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017[acceso: 20/04/2020];46:988-92. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28408147/

  12. Ibáńez Berganza M, Amico A, Loreto V. Subjectivity and complexity of facial attractiveness. Scient Rep. 2019[acceso: 30/06/2020];9:1-12. Disponible en: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44655-9

  13. Zhu S, Jayaraman J, Khambay B. Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with cleft lip and palate by laypeople and professionals: A systematic literature review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016[acceso: 28/09/2020];53(2):187-96. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25650654/

  14. Kornmann N, Tan R, Mulder F. Defining the aesthetic range of normal symmetry for lip and nose features in 5 year-old children using the computer-based program SymNose. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019[acceso: 30/06/2020];56(6):799-805. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29074124/

  15. Ozsoy U. Comparison of different calculation methods used to analyze facial soft tissue asymmetry: Global and partial 3-dimensional quantitative evaluation of healthy subjects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016[acceso: 07/04/2021];74:1847. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27292525/

  16. Keijser K, Nowinski D. Photographic measurements partially correlate to nasal function and appearance among adult cleft patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016[acceso: 12/01/2021];4(5):720. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27579244/

  17. Baser B, Patel D, Mishra A. The role of extracorporeal septoplasty in severely deviated nasal septum. Ind J Otolaryng Head Neck Surg. 2019[acceso: 28/03/2021];71(2):271-7. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31275843/

  18. Mbuyi Musanzayi S, Tshilombo Katombe F, Lukasa Tshilobo P, Kalenga Mwenze P. Anthropometric and aesthetic outcomes for the nasolabial region in 101 consecutive African children with unilateral cleft lip one year after repair using the anatomical subunit approximation technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017[acceso: 25/03/2021];46:1338-45. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28629945/

  19. Mosmuller D, Maal TJ, Prahl C, Tan R, Mulder F, Schwirtz R, et al. Comparison of two and three dimensional assessment methods of nasolabial appearance in cleft lip and palate patients. Do the assessment methods measure the same outcome? J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017[acceso: 28/03/2021];45:1220-6. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28552202/

  20. Byrne M, Chan J, O´Broin E. Perceptions and satisfaction of aesthetic outcome following secondary cleft rhinoplasty. Evaluation by patients versus healt professionals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014[acceso: 27/07/2020];42:1062-70. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24581635/

  21. Sinko K, Cede J, Jagsch R, Strohmayr AL, McKay A, Mosgoeller W, et al. Facial aesthetics in young adults after cleft lip and palate treatment over five decades. Scient Rep. 2017[acceso: 13/07/2020];7:15864. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29158593/




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com