Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Rhinoplasty | Research

Prevalence of considering revision rhinoplasty in Saudi patients and its associated factors

Authors: Najlaa Abdulrahman Alsubeeh, Mayar Abdulsalam AlSaqr, Mohammed Alkarzae, Badi Aldosari

Published in: Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Primary rhinoplasty outcomes may not meet individual expectations. Consequently, reoperation may be advocated to improve results. This study examines the prevalence of individuals considering revision rhinoplasty, while identifying the main cosmetic and functional complaints and factors associated.

Methodology

This is a cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia using a self-reported online questionnaire distributed through social media channels. The sample included 1370 participants who were all Saudi nationals over the age of 16 who had undergone primary rhinoplasty at least 1 year prior.

Results

The prevalence of individuals considering revision rhinoplasty was 44.7%. The primary reason for considering it was the desire for further esthetic improvement in an already acceptable result (50.16%). The most common cosmetic complaints subjectively reported were poorly defined nasal tip (32.35%). The most prevalent nasal function symptom was nasal obstruction (56.9%). Significant factors associated with considering revision rhinoplasty included the physician not understanding the patient’s complaints, short consultation time, low monthly income, inadequate information about the expected results, not using computer imaging to predict outcomes, lack of rapport with the surgeon, and inadequate information about the risks and complications.

Conclusions

A thorough understanding of patient concerns and expectations, as well as thoughtful consideration of risk factors, may help surgeons achieve more successful outcomes and potentially reduce the incidence of revision rhinoplasties.

Level of evidence

III
Literature
1.
go back to reference Davis RE, Bublik M (2012) Psychological considerations in the revision rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 28(04):374–379PubMedCrossRef Davis RE, Bublik M (2012) Psychological considerations in the revision rhinoplasty patient. Facial Plast Surg 28(04):374–379PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ambro BT, Wrigh RJ (2008) Psychological considerations in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 24(03):288–292PubMedCrossRef Ambro BT, Wrigh RJ (2008) Psychological considerations in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 24(03):288–292PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR et al (2017) Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156(2_suppl):S1–S30PubMedCrossRef Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ, Rosenfeld RM, Abramson PJ, Chaiet SR et al (2017) Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156(2_suppl):S1–S30PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bagheri SC, Khan HA, Jahangirnia A, Rad SS, Mortazavi H (2012) An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(4):902–909PubMedCrossRef Bagheri SC, Khan HA, Jahangirnia A, Rad SS, Mortazavi H (2012) An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(4):902–909PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kienstra M (2011) Secondary rhinoplasty: revising the crooked nose. Facial Plast Surg 27(05):491–496PubMedCrossRef Kienstra M (2011) Secondary rhinoplasty: revising the crooked nose. Facial Plast Surg 27(05):491–496PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Çaklı H (2012) Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon’s perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(5):322–327PubMedCrossRef Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Çaklı H (2012) Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon’s perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(5):322–327PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Warner J, Gutowski K, Shama L, Marcus B (2009) National interdisciplinary rhinoplasty survey. Aesthet Surg J 29(4):295–301PubMedCrossRef Warner J, Gutowski K, Shama L, Marcus B (2009) National interdisciplinary rhinoplasty survey. Aesthet Surg J 29(4):295–301PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Zojaji R, Javanbakht M, Ghanadan A, Hosien H, Sadeghi H (2007) High prevalence of personality abnormalities in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(1):83–87PubMedCrossRef Zojaji R, Javanbakht M, Ghanadan A, Hosien H, Sadeghi H (2007) High prevalence of personality abnormalities in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(1):83–87PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH, Mulder C, Baca M, Renucci JD et al (2013) Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 33(1):31–37PubMedCrossRef Neaman KC, Boettcher AK, Do VH, Mulder C, Baca M, Renucci JD et al (2013) Cosmetic rhinoplasty: revision rates revisited. Aesthet Surg J 33(1):31–37PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Daniel RK (2009) Middle eastern rhinoplasty in the United States: part I. primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(5):1630–1639PubMedCrossRef Daniel RK (2009) Middle eastern rhinoplasty in the United States: part I. primary rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(5):1630–1639PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Thomson C, Mendelsohn M (2007) Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 36(2):130–134PubMedCrossRef Thomson C, Mendelsohn M (2007) Reducing the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 36(2):130–134PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, Adamson PA (2011) Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 31(7):775–780PubMedCrossRef Chauhan N, Alexander AJ, Sepehr A, Adamson PA (2011) Patient complaints with primary versus revision rhinoplasty: analysis and practice implications. Aesthet Surg J 31(7):775–780PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Constantian MB (2002) Differing characteristics in 100 consecutive secondary rhinoplasty patients following closed versus open surgical approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(6):2097–2111PubMedCrossRef Constantian MB (2002) Differing characteristics in 100 consecutive secondary rhinoplasty patients following closed versus open surgical approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(6):2097–2111PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Constantian MB (2012) What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(3):667–678PubMedCrossRef Constantian MB (2012) What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(3):667–678PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Duron JB, Nguyen P, Bardot J, Aiach G (2014) Rhinoplastie secondaire. In Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Esthétique 59(6):527–541 Duron JB, Nguyen P, Bardot J, Aiach G (2014) Rhinoplastie secondaire. In Annales de Chirurgie Plastique Esthétique 59(6):527–541
20.
go back to reference Vian HNK, Berger CAS, Barra DC, Perin AP (2018) Revision rhinoplasty: physician–patient aesthetic and functional evaluation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 84(6):736–743PubMedCrossRef Vian HNK, Berger CAS, Barra DC, Perin AP (2018) Revision rhinoplasty: physician–patient aesthetic and functional evaluation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 84(6):736–743PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Bracaglia R, Fortunato R, Gentileschi S (2005) Secondary rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(4):230–239CrossRef Bracaglia R, Fortunato R, Gentileschi S (2005) Secondary rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(4):230–239CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B (2013) Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):769–776PubMedCrossRef Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B (2013) Frequency of the preoperative flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):769–776PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Goudakos JK, Daskalakis D, Patel K (2017) Revision rhinoplasty: retrospective chart review analysis of deformities and surgical maneuvers in patients with nasal airway obstruction—five years of experience. Facial Plast Surg 33(03):334–338PubMedCrossRef Goudakos JK, Daskalakis D, Patel K (2017) Revision rhinoplasty: retrospective chart review analysis of deformities and surgical maneuvers in patients with nasal airway obstruction—five years of experience. Facial Plast Surg 33(03):334–338PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ (2010) Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(5):291–297PubMedCrossRef Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ (2010) Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(5):291–297PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hellings PW, Trenité GJN (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117(6):985–989PubMedCrossRef Hellings PW, Trenité GJN (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117(6):985–989PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157–163PubMedCrossRef Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157–163PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Amer MA, Kabbash IA, Younes A, Elzayat S, Tomoum MO (2017) Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the arabic version of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. Laryngoscope 127(11):2455–2459PubMedCrossRef Amer MA, Kabbash IA, Younes A, Elzayat S, Tomoum MO (2017) Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the arabic version of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. Laryngoscope 127(11):2455–2459PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size 1. no. November, 15 Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining sample size 1. no. November, 15
30.
go back to reference Jain S, Gupta A, Jain D (2015) Estimation of sample size in dental research. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 1(1):1–6 Jain S, Gupta A, Jain D (2015) Estimation of sample size in dental research. Int Dent Med J Adv Res 1(1):1–6
32.
33.
go back to reference Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ (2015) Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1596–1605PubMedCrossRef Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ (2015) Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1596–1605PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton GS III, Hellings PW (2016) Evolution of preoperative rhinoplasty consult by computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 32(01):080–087CrossRef Lekakis G, Claes P, Hamilton GS III, Hellings PW (2016) Evolution of preoperative rhinoplasty consult by computer imaging. Facial Plast Surg 32(01):080–087CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS (2010) Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(6):394–398PubMedCrossRef Mehta U, Mazhar K, Frankel AS (2010) Accuracy of preoperative computer imaging in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12(6):394–398PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Rohrich RJ, Lee MR (2013) External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(2):404–416PubMedCrossRef Rohrich RJ, Lee MR (2013) External approach for secondary rhinoplasty: advances over the past 25 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(2):404–416PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prevalence of considering revision rhinoplasty in Saudi patients and its associated factors
Authors
Najlaa Abdulrahman Alsubeeh
Mayar Abdulsalam AlSaqr
Mohammed Alkarzae
Badi Aldosari
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2288-8586
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-019-0237-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1/2019 Go to the issue