The Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire-Aesthetic Surgery: Are We Screening the Troublesome Patients?

This study aims to clarify the current concept of performing rhinoplasty in patients with possible body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). The primary objective was to investigate the validity and evolution over time of the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire-Aesthetic Surgery (BDDQ-AS) before and after surgery. Together with the BDDQ-AS, also the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale, FACE-Q nose and nostrils, and Utrecht questionnaire (UQ) were used for convergent validation. In this prospective study, 187 patients completed these patient-reported outcome measures at four time points: at the preoperative consultation and postoperatively at 3, 6 and 12 months. The preoperative BDDQ-AS positivity rate was as high as 55.1%. Postoperatively, there was a highly significant decrease in the odds of scoring positive on the BDDQ-AS. At the preoperative consultation, positively screened patients were less satisfied with the esthetics of their noses with worse scores on UQ, FACE-Q nose, and visual analog scale. The preoperative differences in outcome measure ratings disappeared postoperatively, except for the FACE-Q nostrils, which surprisingly showed better values in BDDQ-AS positive patients. Younger age and absence of nasal trauma were statistically significant covariates associated with positive BDDQ-AS screening. Due to the overwhelming decrease in positive BDDQ-AS outcomes after surgery, a positive screening result on the BDDQ-AS should not be interpreted as a formal contraindication for surgery. Collaboration with psychologists or psychiatrists remains crucial to diagnose BDD conclusively.

Comparison in Patient Satisfaction Between Structural Component and Hybrid T-bar Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a modified dorsal split preservation technique has been described. In this method, the integrity of the elastic keystone area is preserved by separation of the upper lateral cartilages from the septal T-bar. Our study aimed to evaluate the aesthetical and functional outcome in patients treated with the dorsal T-bar preservation versus the 'gold' standard dorsal split component reduction approach. METHODS: We performed a retrospective propensity score matched analysis in 234 patients enrolled for rhinoplasty. The severity of nasal obstruction was measured with the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation questionnaire (NOSE score). Aesthetic evaluation was performed with the FACE-Q nose and nostrils and Utrecht Questionnaire (UQ). Assessments were conducted prior to surgery, at 3 and at 6 months after surgery. After propensity score matching, 172 patients in two cohorts were retained. The following covariates were taken into the statistical calculation: age, gender, ethnicity, previous nasal surgery, nasal trauma, respiratory allergy, and preoperative NOSE scores. The first cohort of 110 patients underwent rhinoplasty with T-bar preservation technique (TDP). The control cohort consisted of 62 patients who underwent dorsal split component reduction (SCR). RESULTS: The mean preoperative scores for FACE-Q nose, FACE-Q nostrils, UQ and VAS score improved significantly in all patients postoperatively. Both techniques had comparable aesthetic outcome measures that remained unchanged between 3 and 6 months postop. Functional outcome as measured by the NOSE score was in favor of SCR at 3 months postop but the difference between both techniques was not significant anymore at 6 months postop. In contrast to SCR, in TDP, only 31% of the patients needed spreader grafts or autospreader flaps at the internal valve area only for functional reasons. CONCLUSION: The data in this study suggest similar patient satisfaction with SCR and TDP techniques for aesthetics as well as nasal function after 6 months postop. TDP is a very versatile cartilage-sparing method to aesthetically adapt the middle vault without interrupting the keystone area. It combines the popular component separation concept with the preservation of the delicate anatomy of the mid-vault. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Multidimensionality of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinoplasty Satisfaction.

The FACE-Q rhinoplasty module (nose and nostrils), Utrecht questionnaire, and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale are validated Dutch patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate rhinoplasty satisfaction. The objective of this study was to analyze the dimensionality of the measured variables in these four existing questionnaires. Additionally, we investigated the ability of the PROMS to measure change. A prospective single-center study was performed in a consecutive cohort of 106 Dutch-speaking patients. Patients were invited to fill in four PROMs: FACE-Q rhinoplasty module (nose and nostrils), Utrecht questionnaire, and NOSE scale, preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Item quality was calculated in all four questionnaires. The ability of the questionnaires to differentiate between pre- and postoperative patients was determined with a binary logistic regression. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the latent dimensions. Item quality was confirmed in all questionnaires. Backward binary logistic regression revealed that NOSE and FACE-Q nose module were the best discriminant factors pre- and postoperatively. Combination of these two questionnaires gave a specificity of 97.33% and a sensitivity of 94.52% to discriminate between pre- and postoperative cases. Exploratory factor analysis identified the presence of four dimensions: (1) cosmesis of the nose, (2) cosmesis of the nostrils, (3) nasal function, and (4) psychosocial well-being in rhinoplasty patients. Lack of factorial invariance in the preoperative phase, as compared with the postoperative phase, was detected, especially with the FACE-Q nose and to a lesser extent with the Utrecht questionnaire. The FACE-Q rhinoplasty modules (nose and nostrils), the Utrecht questionnaire, and NOSE scale measure different dimensions of rhinoplasty satisfaction and can be used complementary to each other to obtain a more holistic evaluation of rhinoplasty patients. However, the surgeon should keep in mind that lack of factorial invariance preoperative, as opposed to the postoperative phase, may influence the outcome of these questionnaires.

Piezo-assisted Turbinoplasty Versus Partial Turbinectomy in External Septorhinoplasty: A Prospective Comparative Study in 100 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of the piezo-assisted turbinoplasty with a partial turbinectomy technique in the treatment of chronic nasal obstruction due to inferior turbinate enlargement. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective randomized single-center study in a cohort of 100 consecutive patients which underwent external septorhinoplasty and concomitant hybrid type of turbinoplasty. METHODOLOGY: Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. The first group included 50 patients who underwent piezo-assisted outfracturing of the inferior turbinates in combination with bipolar coagulation. The second group included 50 patients who underwent a treatment based on turbinate bipolar coagulation and partial resection of the inferior border of the turbinate. The severity of nasal obstruction was measured in both patient groups with a patient-related outcome questionnaire (NOSE) and objective measures (anterior rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry). Assessments were conducted prior to surgery and 3 months after the surgery. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in the values of the NOSE questionnaire with no relevant difference between the two study groups. Acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry also showed no statistically significant differences between the two study groups. No differences in postoperative healing were found, and postoperative complications were comparable low in both groups. However, the piezo-assisted procedure was quicker to perform with only minimal bleeding. CONCLUSION: During septorhinoplasty, the combination of thermo-coagulation with piezo-assisted turbinoplasty was as efficient as with partial turbinectomy to establish normal nasal breathing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

Cross-Cultural Evaluation of the Dutch FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Questionnaires Using Rasch Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The English version of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module, developed according to Rasch measurement theory, has recently been translated into Dutch. Before conclusions can be drawn from the Dutch version, this translation must also fit the item analysis by the Rasch model. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate cross-cultural equivalence between the Dutch and English versions of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module by applying Rasch methodology. METHODS: Rasch analysis performed with Winsteps (Beaverton, OR) was used to evaluate the Dutch version of the FACE-Q nose and nostrils scales with data from a prospective consecutive cohort of 100 Dutch-speaking septorhinoplasty patients. New Dutch-related conversion tables were constructed for the FACE-Q nose and nostrils scales and compared to the original ones. Psychometric cross-validation was performed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Both questionnaires adequately met the requirement of invariance. Within an acceptable range, some issues with item and person fit were found, as well as some local item dependency and differential item functioning. However, comparison of the Dutch- and English-related conversion tables by ROC analysis demonstrated identical results for the FACE-Q nose and nostrils scales. CONCLUSIONS: Item analysis by the Rasch model on the data of a Dutch-speaking population proved the conceptual correspondence with the original English version.

Dutch Translation and Validation of the FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module.

FACE-Q was developed by Klassen et al in 2010 as a validated psychometric evaluation instrument for patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. The aim of this study was to translate, adapt, and validate the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module into a Dutch version of the FACE-Q questionnaire conceptually equivalent to the original English version. "Satisfaction with nose" and "satisfaction with nostrils" questionnaires were used and translated from English into Dutch. The translation process and cross-cultural adaptation were conducted in accordance to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and World Health Organization guidelines. Psychometric validation was performed prospectively on a patient cohort of 30 patients. Each step in the translation process allowed us to make changes to achieve a conceptual translation equivalent to the original version. Psychometric validation revealed highly significant values for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. The use of international translation guidelines, with a strict translation-back-translation process, led to a Dutch version of the FACE-Q rhinoplasty module. Statistical validation proved the conceptual correspondence with the original English version. The FACE-Q rhinoplasty module is an adequate instrument for determining successful aesthetic surgery based on patient satisfaction. This tool measures twofold: the degree of success with respect to the patient as well as being an assessment tool for the surgeon. We hope this will provide an additional tool to the clinician evaluating the Dutch-speaking rhinoplasty patient.