Effects of Functional Rhinoplasty on Nasal Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis

Zhao, Rui; Chen, Kai; Tang, Yuedi

doi:10.1007/s00266-021-02741-2

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Our mean preoperative VAS score was higher as compared with the previously referenced meta-analysis (4.1 AE 2.8 vs. 2.9 AE 2.2). 2 This difference can be explained by the used inclusion methodology in one study, which stipulated a Rhinoplasty Health Care Monitor van Dam et al…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…2 Our mean preoperative VAS score was higher as compared to the previously referenced metaanalysis (4.1 ± 2.8, versus 2.9 ± 2.2). 2 This difference can be explained by the used inclusion methodology in one study, which stipulated a minimum (severe) level of complaints. 16 Consequently, our 1-year postoperative MD of 3.3 was slightly lower than the pooled MD of 4.2, because our patients had less to gain.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptcontrasting

confidence: 72%

“…Compared to the literature, our preoperative mean NOSE scale sum score was comparable to a pooled mean sum score in a recent meta-analysis on functional rhinoplasty outcomes (69.1 ± 22.8 versus 67.4 ± 20.8). 2 A comparable 1-year postoperative mean difference (MD) was found as well (46 points versus 46.9 points). 2 Our mean preoperative VAS score was higher as compared to the previously referenced metaanalysis (4.1 ± 2.8, versus 2.9 ± 2.2).…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…2 A comparable 1-year postoperative mean difference (MD) was found as well (46 points versus 46.9 points). 2 Our mean preoperative VAS score was higher as compared to the previously referenced metaanalysis (4.1 ± 2.8, versus 2.9 ± 2.2). 2 This difference can be explained by the used inclusion methodology in one study, which stipulated a minimum (severe) level of complaints.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The ambition of rhinoplasty surgeons to assess and report surgical outcomes is evident from the substantial body of literature. 1,2 That most of these outcome publications denote level IV and V evidence, illustrates the presence of major challenges when it comes to providing higher levels of evidence, such as randomized controlled trials or large prospective cohort studies. One of these challenges is the considerable time and resources required for the routine collection and analysis of comprehensive outcome data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Rhinoplasty Health Care Monitor: An Update on the Practical and Clinical Benefits after 10 Years of Prospective Outcome Measurements

van Dam,

van Zijl,

Kremer

et al. 2023

Facial Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The era of value-based healthcare is characterized by an increasing interest in patient-reported health outcomes. For this purpose we developed the rhinoplasty healthcare monitor (RHM), a streamlined outcome measurement protocol, including all rhinoplasty patients since 2014. Statistical analyses of patient-reported outcome data are automated and visually presented on a custom web-based dashboard. We describe the clinical and practical benefits of the RHM and discuss how routine prospective outcome measurements have upgraded our care standards. For this prospective study, 979 consecutive patients referred for functional (revision) rhinoplasty from April 2014 to August 2023 were included. Pre-operative and 3- and 12-month postoperative scores on the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale (NOSE), Utrecht Questionnaire (UQ), and visual analog scales (VAS) were obtained. Of 979 referred patients, 599 (61.2%) were eligible for rhinoplasty. One year postoperatively, mean NOSE scale sum score improved from 69.1 ± 22.8 to 23.1 ± 23.5 (p < 0.001). Functional VAS scores improved from 4.1 ± 2.8 (left) and 4.1 ± 2.8 (right) to 7.5 ± 1.9 (left) and 7.3 ± 2.0 (right) (p < 0.001). Mean UQ sum score improved from 12.0 ± 6.4 to 6.8 ± 3.3 and aesthetic VAS score improved from 4.5 ± 2.5 to 7.4 ± 1.7 (p < 0.001) 1 year postoperatively. Benefits of the outcome routine were improved patient selection, data-driven expectation management and patient empowerment, and targeted critical appraisals of surgical performance. In conclusion, routine, automated, prospective outcome monitoring provides physicians with a response to the increasing demand for data-driven insights in health outcomes. The limited effort that is needed to gather and monitor outcome data, is heavily repaid by valuable insights into aspects of care that can be improved.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

Section: Accepted Manuscriptcontrasting

confidence: 72%