Treatment of snoring using a non-invasive Er:YAG laser with SMOOTH mode (NightLase): a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of a non-invasive 2940 nm Er:YAG treatment with SMOOTH mode in reducing snoring in adult patients and to compare its efficacy and safety to sham treatment in a randomized controlled trial setting.  METHODS: 40 primary snoring patients (≥ 18 year, AHI < 15e/h, BMI ≤ 30) were randomized to receive either 3 sessions NightLase or sham laser treatment. The main outcome measures were Snore Outcomes Survey (SOS), the Spouse/Bed Partner Survey (SBPS), a visual analogue snoring scale (bed partner) and a visual analogue pain scale. RESULTS: NightLase was well tolerated, no local anaesthesia was required (mean VAS pain score in NightLase group = 3.0 ± 1.7). No complications occurred. SOS, SBPS and VAS snoring scores improved in the NightLase group (33.7 ± 14.1 to 56.2 ± 16.1) (35.0 ± 17.1 to 61.5 ± 16.4) and (7.9 ± 2.0 to 4.7 ± 2.8) while no changing in the sham group (32.2 ± 14.5 vs 32.1 ± 13.0) (36.7 ± 12.1 vs 34.7 ± 12.7) (8.1 ± 1.7 vs 8.0 ± 1.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NightLase is a safe, minimal invasive treatment that significantly reduced snoring compared to sham treatment.

Body Dysmorphic Disorder in aesthetic rhinoplasty: Validating a new screening tool.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To validate a new screening tool for body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in patients seeking aesthetic rhinoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective instrument validation study in an academic rhinology clinic. METHODS: The Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire-Aesthetic Surgery (BDDQ-AS) is a seven-item short questionnaire validated in 116 patients undergoing aesthetic rhinoplasty. Screening was positive if the patient acknowledged on the BDDQ-AS that he/she was concerned about their appearance (question 1 = yes) AND preoccupied with these concerns (question 2 = yes) AND that these concerns caused at least moderate distress or impairment in different domains of daily life (question 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 ≥ 3 or question 7 = yes). Construct validity was assessed by comparing the BDDQ-AS to the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Derriford Appearance Scale-59. To determine concurrent validity, the BDDQ-AS was compared to the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Modified for BDD. Finally, the predictive value of the BDDQ-AS on satisfaction 12 months after rhinoplasty was evaluated using a visual analogue scale and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. RESULTS: Reliability of the BDDQ-AS was adequate, with Cronbach alpha = .83 for rhinoplasty patients and .84 for controls. Sensitivity was 89.6% and specificity 81.4%. BDDQ-AS-positive patients (n = 55) were more impaired in daily life and experienced more appearance-related distress and dysfunction compared to BDDQ-AS-negative patients. Moreover, they had more severe BDD symptoms. Finally, BDDQ-AS-positive patients were less satisfied after surgery compared to BDDQ-AS-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: We hereby validated a new screening tool for BDD in an aesthetic rhinoplasty population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b. Laryngoscope, 126:1739-1745, 2016.

Secondary cleft rhinoplasty: impact on self-esteem and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging facial plastic procedures. Although patient satisfaction is the real outcome parameter in rhinoplasty, most authors have studied objective outcomes evaluated by professionals. The purpose of this study was to determine patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty in patients born with a cleft lip compared with outcome assessment by professionals, and to assess the impact of the procedure on appearance-related distress and generic quality of life. METHODS: Patient evaluation of the nose was performed before and 1 year after secondary cleft rhinoplasty (n = 33) using a visual analogue scale for nasal function and shape, and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. General sinonasal complaints were evaluated using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test. Appearance-related psychological distress was measured using the Derriford Appearance Scale. The Sheehan Disability Scale evaluated quality of life. Aesthetic outcome was evaluated by scoring of preoperative and postoperative photographs by two independent surgeons. RESULTS: One year postoperatively, patients showed significantly higher visual analogue scale scores for nasal shape (p < 0.0001) and function (p = 0.005) and higher Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (p < 0.0001) scores. Correspondingly, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores were lower (p = 0.006). The appearance-related psychological distress was lower (p < 0.0001), and the generic quality of life was increased after rhinoplasty (p = 0.01). No correlation was found between patient outcome evaluation and surgeons' scores. CONCLUSION: There is high patient satisfaction at 12 months after secondary cleft rhinoplasty, resulting in a significant improvement of self-esteem and generic quality of life.

Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: In patients seeking aesthetic rhinoplasty, a high prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms has recently been reported. However, the impact of these symptoms on the outcomes after rhinoplasty remains elusive. This large-scale study determines the influence of preoperative body dysmorphic disorder symptoms on patients' postoperative satisfaction and quality of life, using validated questionnaires. METHODS: A 1-year prospective study of 166 adult patients undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty in a tertiary referral center was performed. Severity of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms was assessed by the modified Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Postoperative satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale for patients' appraisal of nasal shape and the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation. Generic quality of life was quantified by the Sheehan Disability Scale, whereas the appearance-related disruption of everyday life was measured by the Derriford Appearance Scale-59. RESULTS: Preoperative body dysmorphic disorder symptom scores inversely correlated with postoperative satisfaction at 3 months (visual analog scale nasal shape: rho = -0.43, p < 0.001; Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation: rho = -0.48, p < 0.001) and 12 months (rho = -0.40, p < 0.001; and rho = -0.41, p < 0.001, respectively) after surgery. In addition, body dysmorphic disorder symptom scores positively correlated with Sheehan Disability Scale scores and Derriford Appearance Scale-59 scores at 3 months (rho = 0.43, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.48, p < 0.001, respectively) and 12 months (rho = 0.32, p < 0.001, and rho = 0.48, p < 0.001, respectively) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first evidence of the negative impact of preoperative body dysmorphic disorder symptoms on subjective outcomes after rhinoplasty, hence unveiling a crucial factor in patient dissatisfaction after aesthetic rhinoplasty.

Rhinoplasty from a rhinologist's perspective: need for recognition of associated sinonasal conditions.

BACKGROUND: Facial plastic surgeons may primarily focus on esthetic improvement of the nasal shape in patients seeking rhinoplasty (RP). However, medical conditions inside the nasal cavity should not be neglected because they may lead to unresolved sinonasal problems and, hence, dissatisfaction after esthetic RP. This observational study investigated the prevalence of sinonasal symptoms and endonasal pathology in patients requesting esthetic RP. METHODS: Patients seeking RP (n = 269) were given a questionnaire evaluating nasal obstruction and sinonasal symptoms using visual analog scales and the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test. In addition, patients underwent nasal endoscopy to evaluate anatomic and/or mucosal disease and skin-prick testing in case of clinical suspicion of allergy. Two control groups consisted of patients with an otological or general ear/nose/throat problem (n = 65) and patients who planned for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS; n = 90). RESULTS: The general appraisal of nasal breathing on a scale from 0-10 in patients seeking RP was as low as 4.3 ± 3.1. Structural pathology was found in 62% of RP patients, with septal deviation being the most frequent problem encountered (54%), followed by internal nasal valve dysfunction (14%). Mucosal disease was present in 28% of RP patients. The mean SNOT-22 score of RP patients (31.8 ± 23.3) was significantly higher than the control group (11.6 ± 7.9; p < 0.001), but lower than the ESS patients (48.5 ± 22.0; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of endonasal structural or mucosal pathology in patients seeking RP is high and should not be overlooked at the time of planning surgery.

High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Nasal aesthetic deformities may be associated with significant body image dissatisfaction. The only diagnostic category in the current list of psychiatric disorders that directly addresses these concerns is body dysmorphic disorder. This large-scale study determined the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder and its symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty and evaluated the clinical profile of these patients. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-six patients were given questionnaires including demographic characteristics, visual analogue scales for nasal shape, the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale modified for body dysmorphic disorder to assess severity of symptoms, a generic quality-of-life questionnaire, and the Derriford Appearance Scale 59, to assess appearance-related disruption of everyday living. Independent observers scored the nasal shape. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of patients showed at least moderate symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder. Aesthetic goals (p < 0.001), revision rhinoplasty (p = 0.003), and psychiatric history (p = 0.031) were associated with more severe symptoms. There was no correlation between the objective and subjective scoring of the nasal shape. Yale-Brown scale modified for body dysmorphic disorder scores correlated inversely with the subjective nasal scoring (n = 210, p < 0.001), without relation to the objective deformity of the nose. Body dysmorphic disorder symptoms significantly reduced the generic quality of life (n = 160, p < 0.001) and led to significant appearance-related disruption of everyday living (n = 161, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of moderate to severe body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in an aesthetic rhinoplasty population is high. Patients undergoing revision rhinoplasty and with psychiatric history are particularly at risk. Body dysmorphic disorder symptoms significantly reduce the quality of life and cause significant appearance-related disruption of everyday living. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

High patient satisfaction after secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip patients.

OBJECTIVES: We surveyed the subjective outcome of secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip patients. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 38 patients who had undergone a secondary rhinoplasty. A total of 30 questionnaires were returned and analyzed. Patients were asked to score their preoperative and postoperative nasal function and form. The validated Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire was supplemented with questions on the subjective burden of the procedure and general satisfaction. In parallel, the objective aesthetic outcome was judged by 2 surgeons using preoperative and postoperative photographs. RESULTS: There was a significant subjective improvement in ROE scores (from 39.3 ± 3.1 to 73.1 ± 2.0, p < 0.001), and in specific scores for nasal aesthetical appearance (from 3.6 ± 0.3 to 7.9 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001) and breathing capacity (from 4.9 ± 0.4 to 6.8 ± 0.3, p < 0.01). Subjective improvement in nasal aesthetics was generally evaluated to be better than improvement in nasal breathing. In retrospect, all patients would undergo the procedure again. Patient satisfaction did not correlate with the surgeon's appreciation of the aesthetic outcome of the rhinoplasty. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction after secondary rhinoplasty in cleft lip patients is high and comparable to that of non-cleft lip rhinoplasty patients.