Dataset Information

Primary and Revision Rhinoplasty: A Single Surgeon Experience and Patient Satisfaction.

ABSTRACT: There is minimal information describing the common characteristics among patients seeking primary/revision rhinoplasty. Success is traditionally interpreted from the surgeon's viewpoint, without considering the patient's perspective. The study's aims were to (1) identify/compare anatomic and functional characteristics commonly found in patients seeking primary and revision rhinoplasties; (2) assess patient satisfaction using a survey; and (3) explore whether graft choice (auricular cartilage versus rib cartilage) affects patient satisfaction and outcome in revision rhinoplasty.

Methods

A retrospective review of all rhinoplasties by a single surgeon from June 2016 to January 2020 was performed, focusing on preoperative anatomic/functional characteristics and operative interventions performed. A survey was then used to assess patient satisfaction. Finally, survey outcomes were compared between patients who received auricular and rib cartilage grafts in revision rhinoplasty.

Results

A total of 102 rhinoplasties (53 primary and 49 revisions) were included. Primary rhinoplasties were noted to have more patients with "big" noses (P = 0.015) or humps (P < 0.010). Patients undergoing revision rhinoplasties more commonly exhibited middle vault collapse (P = 0.022). The survey response rate was 60%. Revision rhinoplasty patients had a higher incidence of dissatisfaction with their outcome.

Conclusions

Several features among patients seeking revision rhinoplasties could have been created in the primary operation. The rhinoplasty surgeon should be careful to not introduce new issues or create worse deformities than those seen following the initial operation. Survey-based outcome analysis demonstrated that revision rhinoplasty patients are more likely to have a greater rate of dissatisfaction following their operation.

SUBMITTER: Suresh R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies, predominantly in the primary care setting, identified time spent with the physician as an important predictor of satisfaction. It is unknown if the same holds true in hand surgery.Questions/purposesIs patient satisfaction measured immediately after an office visit associated with the duration of time spent with the hand surgeon? What other factors are associated with satisfaction directly after the visits and 2 weeks after the appointment?MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 81 patients visiting our hand and upper extremity surgery outpatient clinic. We recorded their demographics and measured physical function, pain behavior, symptoms of depression, time spent in the waiting room, time spent with the physician, and patient satisfaction. Office times were measured using our patient ambulatory tracking system and by a research assistant outside the clinic room. To assess satisfaction we used items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (a federally developed standardized survey instrument) relevant to our study. Two weeks later, 51 (64%) patients were available for telephone followup and the same measures were completed. Mean time spent with the hand surgeon was 8 ± 5 minutes and mean in-office wait time to see the hand surgeon was 32 ± 18 minutes. A priori power analyses indicated that 77 patients would provide 80% power to detect an effect size f(2) = 0.18 for a regression with five predictors. This means that we would detect time spent with the physician as a significant factor if it accounted for 7% or more of the variability in satisfaction.ResultsTime spent with the hand surgeon was not associated with patient satisfaction measured directly after the visit (r = -0.023; p = 0.84). Longer time waiting to see the physician correlated with decreased patient satisfaction (r = -0.30; p = 0.0057). The final multivariable model for increased satisfaction directly after the office visit included shorter waiting time (regression coefficient [β] -0.0014; partial R(2) 0.094; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0024 to -0.00042; p = 0.006) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.057; partial R(2) 0.11; 95% CI, 0.021-0.093; p = 0.002 [adjusted R(2) 0.18; p < 0.001]). Similarly, multivariable analysis found higher patient satisfaction 2 weeks after the visit to be independently associated with shorter waiting time (β -0.0037; partial R(2) 0.10; 95% CI, -0.0070 to -0.00054; p = 0.023) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.15; partial R(2) 0.12; 95% CI, 0.033-0.26; p = 0.012 [adjusted R(2) 0.16; p = 0.0052]).ConclusionsPatient satisfaction among patients undergoing hand surgery may relate more to shorter time in the waiting room and to the quality more than the quantity of time spent with the patient.Level of evidenceLevel II, prognostic study.

Project description:Importance:Patients, governments, health care providers, and insurance companies show an increased interest in health outcomes, especially in centralized medical care, such as cleft lip nose treatment. Transparent outcome reporting requires a thorough methodological design, dedicated prospective data collection process, and, preferably, no interference with the efficacy of daily practice. Objective:To describe the implementation of an automated and prospective secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty outcome routine. Design, Setting, and Participants:A prospective analytic cohort pilot study was conducted among 123 consecutive patients referred for secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty from July 1, 2014, to March 31, 2018, at an academic teaching hospital. Exposures:Secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty or revision. Main Outcomes and Measures:Preoperative and 3- and 12-month postoperative scores on the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale (range 0-100, lower scores indicate better outcome), Utrecht Questionnaire (range 0-100, lower scores indicate better outcome), and visual analog scales (range 0-10: 0, no obstruction; 10, completely blocked nose) were obtained. Data were exported for automated statistical outcome analysis that was supported by graphic output on a customized web-based dashboard. Results:Of the 123 patients (68 male and 55 female; mean age, 23 years [range, 17-68 years]) included in the outcome routine, 103 patients (57 male and 46 female; mean age, 22 years [range, 17-50 years]) were eligible for surgery. The web-based dashboard provided demographic characteristics, reasons that surgery was not performed or indicated, and real-time, short- and long-term change in functional and aesthetic outcome after secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty. Among 66 patients with sufficient follow-up, mean (SD) Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation sum scores after rhinoplasty improved from 30.8 (27.6), which is comparable to a moderate problem, to 19.2 (22.2), which is comparable to a very mild problem (P < .001), and mean Utrecht Questionnaire sum scores decreased from 13.1 (5.6) to 7.1 (3.3) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Routine prospective outcome monitoring provides an evidence-based response to the increasing demand for transparency in health care. The web-based dashboard used during patient counseling, selection, and management of expectations has the potential to compare results of secondary cleft lip rhinoplasty between surgeons and institutions provided that the populations share similar characteristics. The administrative interference with a busy daily practice was limited. Level of Evidence:4.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed by high-volume surgeons/clinics has been associated with increased graft individualization and decreased operating times, complication rates, and total costs.PurposeTo investigate the influence of surgeon/clinic volume on subjective knee function and revision surgery rates at 2 years after primary ACLR.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsData from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry were used to study patients who underwent primary ACLR between 2008 and 2019. Surgeons/clinics were categorized based on a combination of total caseload volume (cutoff: 50 ACLRs/surgeon, 500 ACLRs/clinic) and annual volume (cutoff: 29 ACLRs/year/surgeon, 56 ACLRs/year/clinic). The thresholds of minimal important change (MIC), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) relative to the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and KOOS4 (mean score of the KOOS Pain, Symptoms, Sports/Rec, and QoL subscales) were applied. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess variables influencing the MIC, PASS, or TF of the KOOS and KOOS4. Adjusted Cox regression analysis was conducted to determine the hazard ratio of subsequent ACLR.ResultsOf 35,371 patients, 16,317 had 2-year follow-up outcome data and were included. Patients who underwent primary ACLR by high-volume surgeons had significantly higher MIC and PASS rates and lower TF rates when compared with patients who underwent the procedure by low-volume surgeons: MICKOOS4: 70.6% vs 66.3%; PASSKOOS4: 46.0% versus 38.3%; and TFKOOS4: 8.7% versus 11.8% (all P < .02). Significantly decreased odds of achieving MICKOOS4 (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88) and PASSKOOS4 (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84) were found for ACLRs performed by low-volume surgeons. Clinic volume did not influence the odds of reaching MIC, PASS, or TF. Overall, 804 patients (2.3%) underwent subsequent ACLR at <2 years, with significantly higher revision rates among patients operated on at high-volume clinics (2.5% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, in the adjusted Cox regression, surgeon/clinic volume had no influence on subsequent ACLR rates. High-volume surgeons/clinics had decreased time to surgery, operating time, perioperative complication rates, and use of thromboprophylaxis and nonroutine antibiotics (P < .001).ConclusionPatients who underwent primary ACLR by high-volume surgeons experienced increased improvement and satisfaction regarding subjective knee function. Factors other than surgical volume influenced subsequent surgery rates. Patients might benefit from undergoing primary ACLR by high-volume providers.