Safety and early satisfaction assessment of patients seeking nonsurgical rhinoplasty with filler

Rauso, Raffaele; Colella, Giuseppe; Zerbinati, Nicola; Salti, Giovanni

doi:10.4103/jcas.jcas_89_17

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…10 These statistics were verified within this study and also align with previously stated ~95% satisfaction rating in the literature. 8 Based on this study, the most common self-reported nasal defects include a bump, a hump, and a crooked shape. A bump is defined as a convex irregularity of any area of the nose, and a hump most likely represents a traditional dorsal hump.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Recent studies on nonsurgical rhinoplasty have only been single clinic studies that look at the satisfaction rate of a small number of patients. 8,9 Khansa et al performed a study in 2015 using RealSelf that examined thousands of surgical rhinoplasty reviews and demonstrated the importance of social media in understanding patients' satisfaction after cosmetic surgery. 3 In the age of social media, more and more patients use social media to share their experience and results with other prospective patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A RealSelf Social Media Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients use social media to report on medical care and rate their satisfaction with cosmetic procedures and providers. Currently, there are few studies that examine the satisfaction of nonsurgical rhinoplasty. This study aims to identify variables of patients’ choice and satisfaction of the nonsurgical rhinoplasty procedure through social media reviews. Data were extracted from 420 nonsurgical rhinoplasty reviews from RealSelf.com from March 2017 to April 2020. Recorded variables include patient demographics, price, nasal deficiency, patient-described improvement after injection, and physician characteristics influencing patients’ decision making. Of the data extracted from the reviews, 85% of reviewers were women, with a mean age of 27.4 years (SD, ±8.7 years). Eighty-four percent of reviewers had the procedure performed in the United States (84%). The mean cost was $1074 (SD, ±$733.20; median, $850). The most common patients’ deficiencies for this procedure include a “nasal hump” for 31.2% of reviewers and a “bump or dent” in the nose for 35.1% of reviewers. The procedure outcomes commonly noted were a positive change in “shape” of their nose (66.0%), improved confidence (44.4%), and improvement in profile (34.0%). The predominant reasons reviewers chose their injector were (1) favorable injector demeanor (63%) and (2) ability of the injector to provide emotional reassurance (49%). In all, 95.6% considered nonsurgical rhinoplasty “worth it.” Ninety-five percent of online reviewers stated that nonsurgical rhinoplasty was “worth it,” with an average cost of $1074, minimal post-procedure recovery time, and minimal pain. The most common nasal deficiency includes a bump, a hump, and a crooked shape. The most commonly stated improvement was in the shape of the nose. This demonstrates the utility of nonsurgical rhinoplasty for correction of a wide variety of nasal deficiencies. In the analysis of provider characteristics, the most important aspect was the provider’s demeanor. Patients used words like “warm,” “welcoming,” and “understanding of their desires.” They described feeling “comfortable” with the provider. The most important factor for selecting a provider was the emotional connection between the provider and the patient. Satisfaction of nonsurgical rhinoplasty is high, which corroborates reported satisfaction rates in the literature. Nonsurgical rhinoplasty exhibits significant versatility in the defects it can improve. Many patients chose their provider for their personality and emotional connection formed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A RealSelf Social Media Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initial reports, dating back to the middle of the 1980s, described the use of bovine collagen and silicone to address nasal reshaping. 9,10 In the following decades, the use of several types of HA and calcium hydroxyapatite 11–13 was described. The main concern with calcium hydroxyapatite is the lack of an antidote if any complication occurs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A Graft-based Technique

Segreto

Marangi

Cerbone³

et al. 2019

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only those studies utilizing hyaluronic acid fillers for non‐surgical rhinoplasty on humans or cadavers have been included in this review. Summary of study characteristics that were included has been illustrated in Table 1, 12,17‐27 which includes authors; country where the study has been conducted; no. of patients; age and gender of the patients; fillers used; parameters assessed; and results and adverse effects.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐surgical rhinoplasty using hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: A systematic review

Kumar

Jain²,

Atre

et al. 2021

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Non‐surgical rhinoplasty using hyaluronic acid dermal fillers is a cosmetic procedure that has been becoming increasingly popular among patients wanting to correct nasal deformities or nasal irregularities, in the recent years. Aim This systematic review aims to provide quality evidence about the success of non‐surgical rhinoplasty procedures in terms of patient satisfaction and complications. Methods A systematic electronic literature search using keywords and MESH search terms over the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and EBSCO online databases was conducted from November 2005 to February 2021. Additionally, the reference lists of included systematic reviews were hand searched. Data collected included patient satisfaction and complications from prospective and experimental studies providing highest level of evidence. Articles were critically appraised, and MINORS scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Results Based on the search criteria, 2896 citations were found. After removing duplicates and screening for relevance, 23 citations were finalized for full‐text review, of which 12 articles were excluded and 11 articles were included in the study. The average satisfaction of patients amongst the studies was found to be >90%. In all the studies, transient edema and erythema, post‐injection pain, and bruising were some temporary complications. Rare complications that were reported were vascular impairments and hematoma. Conclusions Non‐surgical rhinoplasty is a good, minimally invasive alternative over conventional rhinoplasty. There is however a paucity of quality data in the form of experimental and prospective studies regarding the accuracy, effectiveness, and complications of non‐surgical rhinoplasty.

show abstract

Safety and early satisfaction assessment of patients seeking nonsurgical rhinoplasty with filler

Cited by 34 publications

References 16 publications

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A RealSelf Social Media Analysis

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A RealSelf Social Media Analysis

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: A Graft-based Technique

Non‐surgical rhinoplasty using hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About