Aesthetic rhinoplasty: a paradigm shift towards cosmesis in Indian population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20231773Keywords:
Aesthetics, Rhinoplasty, Indian, ROE, SatisfactionAbstract
Background: The tremendous growth of cosmetic surgery among Asians is largely due to strength of indigenous economies accompanying globalization. This increase in number can also be attributed to usage of social media as well as increased desire to look perfect. The current study is an attempt to measures aesthetic outcome and identify possible interactions between other possible outcome determinants.
Methods: The present study was a 1.5 years prospective interventional study conducted at SMS Medical College, India from January 2021 to July 2022. A total of 51 samples were included in our study. The rhinoplasty outcome evaluation (ROE) questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction which was presented and completed by all patients before and after 6 months of surgery and data was analysed.
Results: In the present study mean age of study participants was 25.7 years and most subjects (64.7%) were male and (35.3%) were female. Mean total ROE at pre-op and post-op 6 months was 35.05±13.4 and 57.4±27.9 respectively and mean Total ROE difference between pre-op and post-op 6 month was -22.4±36.1. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p value 0.0001).
Conclusions: Aesthetic rhinoplasty in India is emerging as a lifestyle choice because of increased users of social media as well as awareness about procedures available for enhancing facial features. Our study gives a glimpse towards the shift of rhinoplasty in India and explains the possible reasons behind this shift.
References
Rogers BO. John Orlando Roe--not Jacques Joseph--the father of aesthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1986;10(2):63-88.
Kotzampasakis D, Mantalos P, Kotzampasakis S, Danias N, Nikolopoulos T. Assessment of Aesthetic Results of 100 Patients Who Underwent Rhinoplasty-Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(9):e1404.
Chisholm E, Jallali N. Rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty outcome evaluation. Ear Nose Throat J. 2012;91(3):E10-4.
Rikimaru H, Kiyokawa K, Watanabe K, Koga N, Nishi Y. A new therapeutic strategy for lengthening severe short nose. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(2):495-8.
Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A Social Media Analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36(1):NP1-5.
Hsiao YC, Kao CH, Wang HW, Moe KS. A surgical algorithm using open rhinoplasty for correction of traumatic twisted nose. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2007;31:250-8.
Khan N, Rashid M, Khan I, Ur Rehman Sarwar S, Ur Rashid H, Khurshid M, Khalid Choudry U, Fatima N. Satisfaction in Patients After Rhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Cureus. 2019;11(7):e5283.
Seyhan T. Correction of major saddle nose deformities with nasomaxillary depression using an intraoral and external open rhinoplasty approach. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2010;34:587-95.
Salcedo JA, Miranda MA, Salguero JF. Treatment protocol for ‘‘mestizo nose’’ with open rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2011;35:972-88.
Disawal A, Srivastava S. Changes in patient’s life after rhinoplasty. Int Surg J. 2021;8:1260.
Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RSL. Influence of age on rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:248-53.
Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF, Anderson S. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3:198-201.
Hellings PW, Trenite´ GJN. Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:985-9.
Günel C, Omurlu IK. The effect of rhinoplasty on psychosocial distress level and quality of life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:1931-5.
Thakurani S, Gupta S. Evolution of aesthetic surgery in India, current practice scenario, and anticipated post-COVID-19 changes: a survey-based analysis. Eur J Plast Surg. 2021;44(1):129-38-30.
