Critical Choices in Rhinoplasty: A 20-Year Single-Surgeon Retrospective Review of 1000 Cases | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery | ||||
| Article 11, Volume 46, Issue 3, July 2022, Page 283-296 PDF (77.57 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejprs.2022.254746 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Adham Farouk  
| ||||
| The Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objectives: Highlighting certain convictions, techniques and tactics that can be crucial to surgical outcome of rhinoplasty, as an attempt to define clearer indications for what's termed "aesthetic" rhinoplasty. Methods: A 20-year single-surgeon review of 1000+ diverse rhinoplasties. Results: Surgical outcome was satisfactory in 90-97% of post-traumatic rhinoplasties, and in 82-90% of aesthetic rhinoplasties. Complications were minimal. Differences of satisfactory results between post-traumatic and aesthetic cases were found to be statistically significant, and there was disparity in assessment of results between the author and the other surgeons' panel. Conclusions: Like fingerprints and iris pattern, each human being has a unique shape of nose, related to (and inseparable from) the other facial features, and any attempt to impose geometric dimensions or mathematical beauty measures in such case is like squaring the circle; simply impossible. Each nose has a limit for change, and successful rhinoplasty is not only in imagining this particular limit; let alone achieving it, but successful rhinoplasty is when our imagination meets the patient's expectations, which is not more than a mere probability. The dilemma in figuring out a suitable “new look” for the nose, whether it is driven by an exact science or by the passion of plastic surgeons, can blur the thin red line between a justifiable rhinoplasty and a medical malpractice. Therefore, the most critical choice in rhinoplasty is the decision to do a rhinoplasty in the first place. The nose is undoubtedly the most significant facial feature. It characterizes shape and shapes character of the human being. So rhinoplasty is a Psychosurgery and the worst pitfall in practice of rhinoplasty is failing to realize that success and failure will always have equal chances. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Rhinoplasty; Nose; Aesthetic | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1- Hacker S., Pollock J., Gubish W., et al.: Differences between Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: Indications, Techniques, Grafts, and Outcome. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 148 (3): 532-541, 2021. 2- Kotzampasakis D., Mantalos P., Kotzampasakis S., et al.: Assessment of Aesthetic Results of 100 Patients Who Underwent Rhinoplasty - Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open, 5: e 1404, 2017. 3- Tanna N., Nguyen K.T., Ghavami A., et al.: Evidence- Based Medicine: Current Practices in Rhinoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 141 (1): 137e-151e, 2018. 4- Ghareeb F.M., Nassar A.T., Talaab A.A., et al.: Anatomically Based Optimization of Outcomes in Middle Eastern Rhinoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open, 6: e 1862, 2018. 5- Layliev J., Gupta V., Kaoutzanis C., et al.: Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Analysis of 4978 Patients. Aesth. Surg. J., 37(7): 757-767, 2017. 6- Hassan Y., Leveille C.F., Gallo L., et al.: Reporting Outcome and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systemic Review. Aesth. Surg. J., 40 (2): 135-146, 2020. 7- Rohrich R.J., Savetsky I.L. and Avashia Y.J.: Why Primary Rhinoplasty Fails. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 148 (5): 1021- 1027, 2021. 296 Vol. 46, No. 3 / Critical Choices in Rhinoplasty 8- Suresh R., Doval A.F., Newstrom E., et al.: Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience and Patient Satisfaction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open, 9: e 3798, 2021. 9- Daniel R.K.: The Preservation Rhinoplasty: A New Rhinoplasty Revolution. Aesth. Surg. J., 38 (2): 228-229, 2018. 10- Neves J.C.: Preservation Rhinoplasty: An Update. Facial Plast. Surg., 37: 1, 2021. 11- Farouk A.: Rhinoplasty in Clefts: An 18-Year Retrospective Review. Facial Plast. Surg., 31 (5): 539-552, 2015. 12- Ng C.L. and D'Souza A.R.: 120 Years of Dorsal Preservation in Rhinoplasty. Facial Plast. Surg., 37: 76-80, 2021. 13- Levin M., Ziai H. and Roskies M.: Patient Satisfaction following Structural versus Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systemic Review. Facial Plast Surg; published online 2020 DOI https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714268. 14- Ferraz M.B.J. and Sella G.C.P.: Indications for Preservation Rhinoplasty: Avoiding Complications. Facial Plast. Surg., 37: 45-52, 2021. 15- Nakamura F., Luitgards B.F. and Ferreira J.C.I.: Combining Preservation and Structured Rhinoplasty: Septal Extension Grafts and the Interdomal Hanger. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open, 9: e 3323, 2021. 16- Saban Y.: Rhinoplasty: Lessons from “Errors” From Anatomy and Experience to the Concept of Sequential Primary Rhinoplasty. HNO, 66: 15-25, 2018 | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 161 PDF Download: 218 |
||||
