Relevance of Self-Consciousness of Appearance on Patient Satisfaction in Primary Rhinoplasty: a 12-Month Follow-up Prospective Study.

[BACKGROUND] Rhinoplasty procedure has a strong impact on patient quality of life. Plastic surgery patients show a degree of appearance-related distress higher than general population, especially patients undergoing rhinoplasty. Relationship between patient-reported outcome after rhinoplasty and self-consciousness of appearance needs further studies. The aim of this study is to investigate this correlation, considering the surgeon external evaluation as well.

[MATERIALS AND METHODS] A total of 50 consecutive patients underwent primary cosmetofunctional rhinoseptoplasty. Appearance-related distress and surgical outcome were assessed by DAS59 (Derriford Appearance Scale 59) and SCHNOS (Standardised Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey), administered before and after surgery. Follow-up period was 12 months. Third-party clinical outcome was evaluated by three plastic surgeons by a scale ranging from 1 (poor outcome) to 5 (excellent outcome).

[RESULTS] A first division in Group 1 (satisfied) and Group 2 (unsatisfied) was done. DAS59 mean score in Group 1 showed to be statistically lower than Group 2 (p value < 0.05). Spearman's test showed a large strong positive correlation between preoperative and postoperative DAS59 and SCHNOS-C score variations (Delta 0-12 months) (r = 0.7514, p<0.001), as well as between DAS59 and SCHNOS-O (r = 0.5117, p<0.001) and between SCHNOS-C and SCHNOS-O (r = 0.6928, p<0.001).

[CONCLUSION] Rhinoseptoplasty has a significant impact on the patient self-consciousness of appearance, in both negative and positive terms. We emphasize the surgeon's burden, who need to carefully assess and address the patient's expectations during the first evaluation. This distinction is crucial since unrealistic expectations may lead to dissatisfaction even after a properly performed procedure.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.