The Principles and Practice of Primary Endonasal Rhinoplasty.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to provide a guide for plastic surgeons, regardless of experience level, seeking to improve his/her endonasal rhinoplasty skills and comfort level. We have presented the advantages of our technique and its unifying principles and demonstrated how endonasal rhinoplasty can be used to achieve safe, anatomical, and predictable outcomes. Endonasal rhinoplasty is a separate thought process from open rhinoplasty and should not be viewed as a competing but rather parallel technique that is broadly applicable to many nasal deformities.We have described the basic goals of all rhinoplasties and highlighted 2 false assumptions that are responsible for most adverse rhinoplasty outcomes and 4 anatomical deficits that surgeons must recognize preoperatively to maximize function, proportion, and contour. Finally, the majority of primary rhinoplasties can be performed with 1 of 2 operative strategies that depend on the relationship of the dorsum to the lower nose. Because surgeons often presume that they will not be able to "see well enough" in endonasal rhinoplasty or worry they have not been adequately trained in the technique, we have provided a step-by-step guide to help overcome such fears and help these surgeons to achieve results that will exceed their patients' goals.

The Principles and Practice of Endonasal Rhinoplasty: Special Topics for Clinics in Plastic Surgery Journal.

Endonasal rhinoplasty is a minimally invasive approach in which esthetic and functional improvements are made solely through intranasal, without transcolumellar, incisions and with limited soft tissue and skeletal disruption. In addition to intentionally limiting surgical dissection, the rhinoplasty surgeon must preoperatively recognize and surgically correct 4 common anatomic variants which predictably create all 3 patterns of secondary deformity. In combination, respecting these principles gives the surgeon greater predictability in achieving esthetic and functional improvements, and the ability to limit the adverse effects of skin contractility and postoperative scar contracture, thus reducing the risk of secondary deformity, patient dissatisfaction, and reoperation.

The Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences, Body Shame, and Revision Request Rate in 218 Plastic Surgery Patients: What Drives Postoperative Dissatisfaction?

BACKGROUND: What drives patients who are unhappy despite good results? Adverse childhood experiences are common, can impair adult health, and can cause body shame. Neither adverse childhood experiences nor body shame has been studied in surgical patients. The authors report adverse childhood experience prevalences in a plastic surgical population and investigate associations from adverse childhood experiences to body shame and to postoperative dissatisfaction. METHODS: Two hundred eighteen consecutive patients (86 percent aesthetic and 14 percent reconstructive) completed the Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey and the Experience of Shame Scale. A one-sample test of proportions, logistic regression, and mediation analysis assessed outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to the Kaiser/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention medical population, our patients had higher overall adverse childhood experience prevalences (79.8 percent versus 64 percent), emotional abuse (41 percent versus 11 percent), emotional neglect (38 percent versus 15 percent), family substance abuse (36 percent versus 27 percent), and family mental illness (29 percent versus 19 percent, all p < 0.001). Fifty-two percent of our patients had body shame. Adverse Childhood Experiences score predicted body shame (OR, 1.22; p = 0.003). Compared to unshamed patients, body shame was associated with more adverse childhood experiences (85 percent versus 72 percent), higher median Adverse Childhood Experiences score (3.5 versus 2), more cosmetic operations (three versus zero), more health problems (three versus two), higher antidepressant use (39 percent versus 19 percent), substance abuse history (16 percent versus 5 percent), and demands for additional pain medication (18 percent versus 5 percent). Body shame predicted requests for surgical revision (49 percent versus 17 percent; OR, 4.61; all p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse childhood experience were common in our patients. Adverse Childhood Experiences score predicted body shame, which predicted revision requests. If body shame preceded and drove surgery, revision requests were likely. Patients desiring revisions had recognizable characteristics. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Defining the Histologic Support Structures of the Nasal Ala and Soft Triangle: Toward Understanding the Cause of Iatrogenic Alar Retraction.

BACKGROUND: As rhinoplasty techniques have evolved to more extensive dissections, the incidence of iatrogenic deformities, such as alar rim retraction, has risen. Its mechanism is presently unknown. This study examined the microscopic anatomy of the nasal ala to define architectural support elements at the histologic level to determine why rhinoplasty dissection creates such deformities. METHODS: Eight cadaveric noses were harvested and sectioned through the soft triangle and ala. Various tissue stains were performed. Slides were examined using light microscopy. Anatomical features pertaining to cartilage, skin, mucosa, elastic fibers, and muscle were documented. RESULTS: Four male and four female noses were sectioned. The median cadaver age was 64 years (range, 47 to 83 years). On Elastica van Gieson stain, distinct elastic fibers span from the vestibular lining to the caudal margin of the lower lateral cartilage, and from the caudal edge of the lower lateral cartilage to the external alar skin. In the nasal ala midsection, trichrome stains reveal that skeletal muscle is located far beyond the lower lateral cartilage, close to the free alar margin. The soft triangle shows a distinct microanatomical structure, with heavy longitudinal condensations of elastin. These histologic findings have not been previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: A distinct anatomical alar wall endoskeleton has been identified. It is obligatorily disrupted by specific rhinoplasty maneuvers when dissection is carried out over the lateral crura and into areas without cartilaginous support. This microanatomy may explain factors that contribute to postoperative alar wall retraction. Leaving this area undisturbed or performing adjunctive measures with rhinoplasty can provide structural support to the external valves, thus minimizing the risk of deformity.

Why some patients are unhappy: part 1. Relationship of preoperative nasal deformity to number of operations and a history of abuse or neglect.

BACKGROUND: Trauma (neglect or abuse) can create body shame (different from body dissatisfaction), driving some patients to seek aesthetic surgery. We hypothesized that a trauma history would be related to the severity of the original deformity and the drive to undergo repeated operations. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were computed for 100 secondary rhinoplasty patients, 50 of whom originally had dorsal humps, 21 of whom had straight, functional noses, and 29 of whom had subjectively normal noses but underwent multiple rhinoplasties. This latter group fulfills criteria for body dysmorphic disorder. RESULTS: Compared with patients with hump noses, patients with normal primary noses were 2.9 times more likely to be demanding 2.5 times more likely to be depressed, had undergone 3.0 times more rhinoplasties and other aesthetic operations, and were 3.8 times more likely to have confirmed trauma histories. Patients who had undergone more than three operations were 92.7 percent women; 85 percent originally had straight noses and had undergone an average of 7.56 rhinoplasties and 5.78 aesthetic operations; 85.4 percent had histories of abuse or neglect. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary rhinoplasty patients with normal preoperative noses, who fulfill the criteria for body dysmorphic disorder, had significantly higher prevalences of depression, demanding conduct, previous rhinoplasties and other aesthetic operations, and confirmed trauma histories than patients who originally had dorsal deformities or straight noses with functional symptoms. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of such associations. A history of childhood trauma may impact adult patient behavior and therefore the surgical experience.

Why some patients are unhappy: part 2. Relationship of nasal shape and trauma history to surgical success.

BACKGROUND: A previous report indicated that secondary rhinoplasty patients with normal preoperative noses displayed significantly higher prevalences of depression, demanding behavior, previous aesthetic operations, and confirmed trauma (abuse/neglect) histories than patients who originally had dorsal deformities or straight noses with functional symptoms. The authors hypothesized that abuse or neglect might also influence patient satisfaction and suggest screening criteria. METHODS: One hundred secondary rhinoplasty patients stratified by their original nasal shapes were examined by bivariate analysis to determine the characteristics associated with surgical satisfaction. Mediation analysis established intervening factors between total surgery number and patients' perceived success. Random forests identified important patient attributes that predicted surgical success; logistic regression confirmed these effects. RESULTS: Satisfied patients originally had dorsal humps, three or fewer previous operations, were not demanding or depressed, were not looking for perfect noses, and had no trauma histories. Dissatisfied patients originally had subjectively normal noses, more than three operations, were depressed, had demanding personalities, and had trauma histories. Patients who had undergone the most operations were most likely to request more surgery and least likely to be satisfied. A trauma (abuse/neglect) history was the most significant mediator between patient satisfaction and number of operations and the most prominent factor driving surgery in patients with milder deformities. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially causative links exist between trauma (abuse/neglect), body image disorders, and obsessive plastic surgery. Body dysmorphic disorder may be a model of the disordered adaptation to abuse or neglect, a variant of posttraumatic stress disorder. Our satisfied and dissatisfied patients shared common characteristics and therefore may be identifiable preoperatively.

What motivates secondary rhinoplasty? A study of 150 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence-based information on secondary rhinoplasty patient motivations for surgery, satisfaction, or revision rates. METHODS: The charts of 150 consecutive patients (121 women and 29 men) who underwent secondary rhinoplasty between July of 2007 and October of 2008 were reviewed; preoperative deformity severity was graded from 1 to 5. The patients' primary reasons for surgery, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and postoperative depression or body dysmorphic disorder were tallied. RESULTS: The average number of prior operations was 3.6. The most commonly expressed reason (41 percent) for undergoing revision was the development of a new deformity after the primary rhinoplasty. Those patients also had the most severe preoperative deformities (p < 0.02). Other motivations were failure to correct the original deformity (33 percent), an intolerable perceived loss of personal, familial, or ethnic characteristics (15 percent), the desire for further improvement in an already acceptable result (10 percent), and a new or unrelieved airway obstruction (1 percent). Ninety-seven percent of patients were happy with their outcomes. Forty patients (27 percent) were depressed before surgery and three (2 percent) displayed evidence of body dysmorphic disorder postoperatively. The depressed and dysmorphic patients did not have worse deformities than those who were not depressed postoperatively (p < 0.8695). CONCLUSIONS: Most secondary rhinoplasty patients have motivations similar to those of our other reconstructive patients and will be pleased with their surgical outcomes. The most severe preoperative deformities were iatrogenic. The unhappy postoperative patients, including those with body dysmorphic disorder, did not have more severe preoperative deformities than the others (i.e., their deformities alone did not justify their unhappiness).

The Goldwyn diary of November and December 1960, at the Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Lambaréné, Gabon.

Through unexpected circumstances, I went to Lambaréné, in Gabon, to be Dr. Albert Schweitzer's surgeon for 2 months, November and December of 1960.This diary I can honestly say I never thought would become public. The years have passed; I am now 77. I realize that not many of those who served in a medical capacity at his hospital are still alive and not everyone will share his or her experiences.I want to make clear that I was with Dr. Schweitzer only 2 months. I would not want anyone to think that I played a strategic role at the hospital. I did not, but I helped as best I could.Although I have traveled throughout the world and have been a surgeon in many out-of-the-way places, I have not returned to Lambaréné. The reason, I confess, is that I wanted it to remain in my mind as it was. For Dr. Schweitzer and those who served there, his hospital was a way of life. It was a world of its own and, though small, it came into being because of the arching ideals and unflagging dedication of a remarkable man. His example should inspire us to enlarge our personal horizons, not just to recognize the less fortunate but to act without delay on their behalf. For each of us, there is an Ogowe waiting to be crossed.