Cargando…

Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients

Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty is a growing area of research. The FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module, used to assess these values, requires translation to national languages. METHODS: Fourteen questions assessing the Satisfaction with Nose Scale and Adverse Effects Checklist of FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Mod...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kalaaji, Amin, Dreyer, Stine, Schnegg, Jakob, Sanosyan, Lena, Radovic, Tatjana, Maric, Ivana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6908397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31942405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002448
_version_ 1783478715875852288
author Kalaaji, Amin
Dreyer, Stine
Schnegg, Jakob
Sanosyan, Lena
Radovic, Tatjana
Maric, Ivana
author_facet Kalaaji, Amin
Dreyer, Stine
Schnegg, Jakob
Sanosyan, Lena
Radovic, Tatjana
Maric, Ivana
author_sort Kalaaji, Amin
collection PubMed
description Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty is a growing area of research. The FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module, used to assess these values, requires translation to national languages. METHODS: Fourteen questions assessing the Satisfaction with Nose Scale and Adverse Effects Checklist of FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module were translated to Norwegian with adherence to the Mapi Research Trust guidelines. Answers were processed by QuestBack anonymously. Of the 243 patients undergoing rhinoplasty at Oslo Plastic Surgery Clinic, 214 patients were reachable by e-mail. RESULTS: Response rates to the pre- and postoperative questionnaire were 23% and 32%, respectively. Responses for somewhat or very satisfied with the nose (pre- versus postoperative) were: overall size of the nose (16.3% versus 61.7%); how straight the nose looks (22.4% versus. 58.3%); how well the nose suits the face (12.2% versus 60%); length of the nose (20.4% versus 68.4%); width of the nose at the bottom (26.6% versus 55%); bridge of the nose (14.3% versus 55%); how the nose looks in photographs (10.2% versus 50%), and tip of the nose (16.3% versus 48.3%). Adverse effects (pre- versus postoperative) were moderate or extreme difficulty breathing through the nose (28.6% versus 35%); tenderness (6.1% versus 23.7%); skin of the nose looking thick or swollen (14.6% versus 30.5%); and unnatural bumps or hollows on the nose (55.1% versus 53.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction levels in rhinoplasty patients are not as high as in other cosmetic surgery procedures, such as breast augmentation. However, compared with baseline, satisfaction levels showed great improvement postoperatively. The Rhinoplasty Module seems useful in evaluating outcome of rhinoplasty. We encourage application of this clinical outcome of rhinoplasty in and among centers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6908397
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69083972020-01-15 Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients Kalaaji, Amin Dreyer, Stine Schnegg, Jakob Sanosyan, Lena Radovic, Tatjana Maric, Ivana Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Original Article Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty is a growing area of research. The FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module, used to assess these values, requires translation to national languages. METHODS: Fourteen questions assessing the Satisfaction with Nose Scale and Adverse Effects Checklist of FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module were translated to Norwegian with adherence to the Mapi Research Trust guidelines. Answers were processed by QuestBack anonymously. Of the 243 patients undergoing rhinoplasty at Oslo Plastic Surgery Clinic, 214 patients were reachable by e-mail. RESULTS: Response rates to the pre- and postoperative questionnaire were 23% and 32%, respectively. Responses for somewhat or very satisfied with the nose (pre- versus postoperative) were: overall size of the nose (16.3% versus 61.7%); how straight the nose looks (22.4% versus. 58.3%); how well the nose suits the face (12.2% versus 60%); length of the nose (20.4% versus 68.4%); width of the nose at the bottom (26.6% versus 55%); bridge of the nose (14.3% versus 55%); how the nose looks in photographs (10.2% versus 50%), and tip of the nose (16.3% versus 48.3%). Adverse effects (pre- versus postoperative) were moderate or extreme difficulty breathing through the nose (28.6% versus 35%); tenderness (6.1% versus 23.7%); skin of the nose looking thick or swollen (14.6% versus 30.5%); and unnatural bumps or hollows on the nose (55.1% versus 53.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction levels in rhinoplasty patients are not as high as in other cosmetic surgery procedures, such as breast augmentation. However, compared with baseline, satisfaction levels showed great improvement postoperatively. The Rhinoplasty Module seems useful in evaluating outcome of rhinoplasty. We encourage application of this clinical outcome of rhinoplasty in and among centers. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6908397/ /pubmed/31942405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002448 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kalaaji, Amin
Dreyer, Stine
Schnegg, Jakob
Sanosyan, Lena
Radovic, Tatjana
Maric, Ivana
Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title_full Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title_fullStr Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title_short Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients
title_sort assessment of rhinoplasty outcomes with face-q rhinoplasty module: norwegian linguistic validation and clinical application in 243 patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6908397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31942405
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002448
work_keys_str_mv AT kalaajiamin assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients
AT dreyerstine assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients
AT schneggjakob assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients
AT sanosyanlena assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients
AT radovictatjana assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients
AT maricivana assessmentofrhinoplastyoutcomeswithfaceqrhinoplastymodulenorwegianlinguisticvalidationandclinicalapplicationin243patients