A comprehensive evaluation of surgical techniques, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in rhinoplasty procedures

Nº de DOI: 10.34896/RSI.2025.43.57.001

AUTHORS

1. Walter Fernando Franco Reyes. General Practitioner. Attached to the Junquillal Salitre Health Centre. Independent Researcher at the Matilde Hidalgo of Procel Research and Teaching Department. Graduate of the University of Guayaquil. (Guayaquil-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9972-074X
2. Carlos Paúl Landázuri Arboleda. General Practitioner. Attached to Grimimed. Graduate of the Santiago Catholic University of Guayaquil. (Guayaquil-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8856-3503
3. Jhonatan Fabricio Remache Velastegui. General Practitioner. Attached to the Southern Metropolitan Health Unit. Graduate of the International University of Ecuador. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6358-2245
4. Kimberly Paola Rodriguez Novillo. General Practitioner. Attached to the Doctor Ronald Rodríguez Cuenca Clinic. Graduate of the University of Azuay. (Quito-Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3771-3218
5. Oswaldo Steven Feijoo Romero. General Practitioner and Master’s Degree in Education with a specialisation in Technical and Professional Training. Attached to the Flor of Bastión Health Centre. Graduate of the University of Guayaquil. (Guayaquil -Ecuador). https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9499-5583

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current surgical techniques in rhinoplasty, analyze their respective clinical outcomes—including complication rates and long-term results—and delve into the multifaceted aspects of patient satisfaction, ultimately offering insights into best practices that align surgical excellence with patient-centered care.

KEY WORDS

Rhinoplasty, nasal surgery, surgical techniques, esthetic outcomes, functional outcomes, complications and patient satisfaction.

RESUMEN

Este artículo busca proporcionar una evaluación integral de las técnicas quirúrgicas actuales en rinoplastia, analizar sus respectivos resultados clínicos (incluyendo las tasas de complicaciones y los resultados a largo plazo) y profundizar en los diversos aspectos de la satisfacción del paciente, ofreciendo así perspectivas sobre las mejores prácticas que armonizan la excelencia quirúrgica con la atención centrada en el paciente.

PALABRAS CLAVE

Rinoplastia, cirugía nasal, técnicas quirúrgicas, resultados estéticos, resultados funcionales, complicaciones y satisfacción del paciente.

INTRODUCTION

Rhinoplasty, commonly referred to as nasal surgery, remains one of the most intricate and frequently performed procedures within the realm of facial plastic surgery, given its profound impact on both aesthetic appearance and nasal function. As surgical techniques continue to evolve, a comprehensive understanding of the various approaches—principally the open and closed rhinoplasty methods—becomes essential for surgeons aiming to optimize outcomes while minimizing complications. The choice between these techniques often hinges on specific indications, patient anatomy, and desired results, underscoring the importance of tailoring surgical strategies to individual needs. Concurrently, evaluating clinical outcomes involves scrutinizing common risks such as bleeding, infection, and structural dissatisfaction, alongside assessing postoperative recovery trajectories and the durability of aesthetic and functional results over time. Equally vital is understanding patient satisfaction, which is influenced by the congruence between surgical results and preoperative expectations, as well as the psychosocial factors that shape patient perceptions. To date, numerous assessment tools and methodologies have been employed to gauge satisfaction and outcomes, yet discrepancies often exist between clinical success and patient contentment.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate current surgical techniques in rhinoplasty, analyse their respective clinical outcomes including complication rates and long-term results and delve into the multifaceted aspects of patient satisfaction, ultimately providing information on best practices that align surgical excellence with patient-centred care.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this scientific review article, titled “A Comprehensive Evaluation of Surgical Techniques, Outcomes, and Patient Satisfaction in Rhinoplasty Procedures,” follows a systematic and structured approach to collect, analyze, and synthesize relevant literature. The review aims to evaluate the diversity of surgical techniques used in rhinoplasty, the functional and aesthetic outcomes reported, and the levels of patient satisfaction following the procedure. A thorough literature search is conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search includes studies published in English over the past 20 years and uses a combination of keywords and MeSH terms such as “rhinoplasty”, “nasal surgery”, “surgical techniques”, “esthetic outcomes”, “functional outcomes”, “complications” and “patient satisfaction”. Boolean operators are applied to refine and focus the results.

Inclusion criteria comprise original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials that evaluate one or more surgical approaches in rhinoplasty—such as open versus closed technique, structural grafting, septorhinoplasty, or revision rhinoplasty—as well as studies that report measurable postoperative outcomes or patient-reported satisfaction using validated. Studies focusing on both cosmetic and reconstructive indications are considered. Exclusion criteria include case reports, editorial articles, animal studies, and publications lacking quantitative or qualitative outcomes data relevant to surgical results or patient experience.

Titles and abstracts are initially screened by two independent reviewers to assess relevance, followed by full-text reviews to determine eligibility. Disagreements are resolved by discussion or with the input of a third reviewer. For each included study, data are extracted using a standardized form, capturing information such as study design, sample size, surgical technique employed, duration of follow-up, objective outcome measures, complication rates, and patient satisfaction scores. When available, comparative data between techniques are documented.

RESULTS

Evaluation of Surgical Techniques in Rhinoplasty:

What are the main surgical techniques used in rhinoplasty?

The two main surgical techniques used in rhinoplasty are the open and closed approaches, each offering distinct advantages and disadvantages that influence their application in clinical practice¹. Open rhinoplasty involves creating an external incision on the columella, which allows for improved visualization and access to the underlying nasal structures but can result in visible scarring and a potentially longer recovery period¹. In contrast, closed rhinoplasty is performed entirely through incisions made within the nostrils, thus eliminating the risk of external scars and typically resulting in reduced postoperative swelling and faster healing times¹. Both techniques are designed to address bony and cartilaginous deformities of the nasal anatomy, and the choice between them often depends on the complexity of the case, the surgeon’s expertise, and the patient’s desired outcomes¹. The evolution of these approaches underscores the need for individualized surgical planning, highlighting the importance of careful technique selection to optimize both aesthetic and functional results in rhinoplasty patients.

How do open and closed rhinoplasty approaches compare?

The open and closed rhinoplasty approaches each have distinctive procedural attributes that influence both surgical outcomes and patient experiences, depending largely on the complexity of the case and the specific goals of the surgery². Open rhinoplasty, by way of its external columellar incision, provides surgeons with direct visualization and access to nasal structures, which is particularly advantageous for complex nasal reshaping and for addressing intricate anatomical issues^1,2,3. This enhanced exposure allows for meticulous modifications but comes at the expense of a small external scar and typically a longer recovery time due to increased tissue manipulation and surgical duration⁵. In contrast, closed rhinoplasty, performed through incisions inside the nostrils, results in no visible external scarring and generally offers a shorter recovery period, making it ideal for patients seeking subtle changes with minimal downtime^1,3. However, the closed approach can be limiting for more extensive corrections where precise visualization and manipulation are². The interplay between these factors—extent of reshaping, visibility, scar concerns, and recovery expectations—highlights the necessity for individualized surgical planning and thorough consultation with a skilled rhinoplasty specialist, ensuring that the chosen technique aligns optimally with the patient’s anatomical needs, aesthetic goals, and lifestyle considerations³. Given the significant differences in surgical exposure, recovery profile, and potential for visible scarring, careful evaluation and patient education remain critical in selecting the most appropriate rhinoplasty approach for each unique case.

What are the indications for selecting specific rhinoplasty techniques?

When selecting a rhinoplasty technique, several interrelated factors must be considered to ensure that the chosen approach aligns with both the patient’s goals and their unique anatomical characteristics. The patient’s personal objectives—whether they prioritize aesthetic enhancement, functional improvement, or a combination of both—play a pivotal role in determining the most suitable technique, as different procedures offer distinct advantages in addressing these varied outcomes⁴. For example, a patient desiring significant structural changes or correction of complex deformities may benefit more from an open rhinoplasty, which allows for greater surgical visibility and precision, while those seeking subtle refinements might be better served by a closed approach due to its less invasive nature and faster recovery. In addition to these goals, the patient’s nasal anatomy—such as skin thickness, cartilage strength, and overall nasal shape—must be carefully assessed, as these characteristics can influence the feasibility and effectiveness of specific techniques⁵. Furthermore, the history of any previous nasal surgeries is a critical determinant, as revision rhinoplasty often requires specialized methods to address scar tissue or structural alterations caused by earlier interventions^4,5. Ultimately, a comprehensive evaluation that integrates the patient’s aspirations, anatomical considerations, and surgical history is essential for optimal technique selection, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment planning and multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve the desired results.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Rhinoplasty Procedures:

What are the common complications and risks associated with rhinoplasty?

Rhinoplasty, while often pursued for aesthetic or functional improvement, is accompanied by a spectrum of complications that can affect both the appearance and the function of the nose. Among the most immediate concerns are postoperative bleeding, infection, and adverse reactions to anesthesia, all of which are inherent risks in surgical procedures but may have particular relevance in nasal surgery due to the vascularity and complexity of the region⁶. Structural modifications to the nasal framework can result in nasal blockage or difficulty breathing, underscoring an important intersection between cosmetic goals and airway functionality⁶. Furthermore, swelling and bruising are common in the early recovery period, which not only impacts the patient’s comfort but can also obscure the surgical results and complicate postoperative assessment⁶. More persistent complications, such as scarring—particularly with open rhinoplasty approaches—may alter both the external appearance and the internal structure, potentially leading to nasal deformities⁶. These aesthetic and functional complications also carry psychosocial ramifications, as dissatisfaction with nasal symmetry or overall outcome is a leading cause of patient distress and may necessitate revision surgery, further intertwining the domains of surgical risk, patient expectation, and psychological well-being⁶. Therefore, comprehensive preoperative counseling, meticulous surgical technique, and diligent postoperative care are essential to minimize these risks and manage the complex interplay between cosmetic outcomes and respiratory health.

How is postoperative recovery and healing assessed in rhinoplasty patients?

Postoperative recovery and healing in rhinoplasty patients are comprehensively assessed through a multifaceted approach that integrates clinical observations, patient-reported experiences, and structured follow-up appointments. The recovery process is delineated into distinct stages, with each phase being characterized by specific milestones such as the reduction of swelling, fading of bruising, and gradual return to normal nasal function⁷. Healthcare providers play a pivotal role in this continuum by closely monitoring the progression of these stages, evaluating physical signs, and addressing patient concerns or complications during scheduled follow-up visits⁷. This collaborative process not only ensures that complications are promptly managed but also aids in setting realistic expectations for the patient regarding the healing timeline, as individual responses to surgery can vary significantly^6,8. Furthermore, the importance of patient adherence to postoperative care—especially meticulous compliance with the surgeon’s guidelines—cannot be overstated, as it directly influences both the speed and quality of healing^8,9. Ultimately, thorough assessment of recovery in rhinoplasty involves a dynamic interplay between careful clinical evaluation, patient education, and proactive management, underscoring the necessity for ongoing interventions and individualized care to achieve optimal surgical and aesthetic outcomes⁹.

What are the long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes of various rhinoplasty techniques?

Beyond the choice of open versus closed approaches, the long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasty are deeply influenced by the holistic integration of surgical technique selection, individualized pre-operative assessment, and the surgeon’s ability to harmonize cosmetic and functional objectives. A comprehensive pre-operative evaluation is crucial, as it enables surgeons to tailor the chosen technique to the unique anatomical and aesthetic needs of the patient, ultimately maximizing both functional and cosmetic benefits¹⁰. Notably, contemporary methods such as cartilage grafting, flap techniques, and the use of alloplastic materials have demonstrated robust outcomes in restoring nasal structure and function, while simultaneously enhancing the patient’s appearance¹¹. Satisfaction for both patient and surgeon, measured through reliable tools such as rhinoplasty result assessment questionnaires, serves as a vital indicator of procedural success and correlates closely with the long-term stability and natural integration of surgical results^10,12. Furthermore, the dual pursuit of optimal nasal function and facial harmony underscores the modern paradigm in rhinoplasty, where functional improvements—such as better nasal airflow—are achieved without compromising aesthetic goals¹³. Ultimately, a patient-centered, customized approach is needed, combining meticulous surgical planning, clear communication of expectations, and ongoing outcome assessment to ensure durable functional and aesthetic results over time.

Assessment of Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty:

What methods are used to measure patient satisfaction post-rhinoplasty?

A comprehensive evaluation of patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty relies on a variety of methods, with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) playing a central role in capturing both aesthetic and functional perspectives¹⁴. Among the most widely used tools is the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire, a validated instrument specifically designed to assess satisfaction by probing patients’ self-perceptions of nasal appearance and function, as well as their confidence in the surgical result and the likelihood of considering further procedures¹⁵. The ROE questionnaire consists of six questions, each rated on a 0 to 4 scale, which collectively yield a score that is normalized to a 100-point scale for straightforward interpretation, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction¹⁶. Importantly, the application of the ROE may involve comparing preoperative expectations—assessed using preoperative photographs—with postoperative outcomes, thereby providing insight into the extent to which surgical results align with patient goals¹⁴. This quantitative approach is often supplemented by qualitative data, such as self-reports on both aesthetic and functional satisfaction, and feedback from family and friends regarding changes in appearance and psychosocial functioning, offering a holistic view of patient well-being¹⁵. Beyond the ROE, other PROMs—including the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17, the Rhinoplasty Health Inventory and Nasal Outcomes scale, and the FACE-Q Rhinoplasty module—evaluate satisfaction across domains of nasal function, aesthetics, and quality of life, with multi-functional instruments being particularly valued for their ability to capture the interconnected nature of surgical outcomes¹⁴. To ensure robust and actionable satisfaction assessments, future evaluations should prioritize the use of validated, comprehensive tools that address both patient and observer perspectives, and integrate both retrospective and prospective data collection for a nuanced understanding of postoperative success^14,15,16.

How do surgical results align with patient expectations?

A critical aspect of achieving optimal outcomes in rhinoplasty, and indeed in all surgical interventions, is the alignment between patient expectations and actual postoperative results. Patient expectations are often inconsistently correlated with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following surgery, reflecting a complex interplay of psychological, social, and informational factors¹⁷. When expectations are unrealistic or based on misconceptions—such as inaccurate estimations of postoperative quality of life or anticipated stigma, which has been observed in various surgical domains including breast cancer and kidney transplant patients—there can be a significant impact on both satisfaction and trust in the treating physician¹⁷. This misalignment can create communication barriers, complicate shared decision-making, and ultimately diminish the effectiveness of the informed consent process¹⁷. Moreover, physicians themselves are not immune to misjudging outcomes, as they may underestimate the degree of patient recovery or adaptation after procedures like colostomy or total colectomy, adding another layer of complexity to perioperative discussions¹⁷. Therefore, it is essential for surgeons to actively assess and address patient expectations prior to surgery, fostering informed discussions that align expectations with realistic surgical outcomes, which is a critical step towards improving patient satisfaction and guiding surgical decisions that support the patient’s functional goals and overall quality of life¹⁸. Interventions such as multidisciplinary preoperative education and shared decision-making frameworks are necessary to bridge expectation gaps, enhance trust, and ensure that postoperative satisfaction is maximized through a mutual understanding of achievable surgical results.

What factors influence patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty procedures?

Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty is shaped by a complex interplay of psychological, social, and physical factors that extend far beyond the technical aspects of surgical technique. A patient’s hopes and expectations about what rhinoplasty can achieve profoundly influence their postoperative contentment, with unmet or unrealistic expectations often resulting in dissatisfaction despite technically successful outcomes¹⁹. Surgeons therefore assess not only the physical deformities but also patients’ psychological state, motivations, and self-perceptions during consultation, as these elements are critical predictors of satisfaction¹⁹. Emotional factors such as a patient’s confidence, desire for change, and acceptance within family and social circles further affect their perception of surgical success, intertwining with their expectations and self-image²⁰. Objective outcomes, such as the presence of residual dorsal humps or tip irregularities, remain significant sources of postoperative concern and can directly impact satisfaction, often prompting revision procedures if the original issue is inadequately addressed or a new deformity arises [28]. Ultimately, patient assessments are the definitive measure of rhinoplasty success, and achieving consensus on surgical goals through effective communication, thorough preoperative counseling, and sensitivity to psychosocial context is crucial in minimizing dissatisfaction and the need for further intervention^19,21. This highlights the necessity for surgeons to integrate technical expertise with a holistic understanding of patient expectations and experiences to foster higher satisfaction rates and optimal outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this comprehensive review underscore the critical importance of individualized surgical planning in rhinoplasty, highlighting how the choice between open and closed techniques should be tailored to each patient’s unique anatomical features, aesthetic goals, and functional needs. The preference for open rhinoplasty in complex cases aligns with its superior visualization capabilities, facilitating precise modifications, yet its potential for visible scarring and longer recovery must be carefully weighed against patient preferences and expectations. Conversely, the advantages of the closed approach—namely minimal scarring and quicker healing—make it suitable for less extensive corrections, although it may be limited in addressing more complex deformities. This nuanced understanding emphasizes that no single technique is universally superior; instead, optimal outcomes hinge on meticulous preoperative assessment and surgeon expertise. The review’s emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures, such as the ROE, provides valuable insights into the subjective satisfaction levels, which are influenced not only by surgical success but also by psychological preparedness and social factors. The importance of managing expectations through effective communication and preoperative counseling is particularly noteworthy, as it can significantly impact overall satisfaction and reduce the likelihood of revision procedures. Despite these strengths, the review also points to certain limitations, such as the variability in individual healing responses and the potential biases inherent in self-reported satisfaction measures. Additionally, long-term outcomes remain somewhat unpredictable, necessitating further prospective studies to evaluate the durability of results over extended periods. Future research should also explore advancements in surgical techniques, including minimally invasive methods and grafting materials, to enhance both aesthetic and functional outcomes. Furthermore, integrating objective functional assessments alongside aesthetic evaluations will strengthen the evidence base and promote a more holistic approach to rhinoplasty. Overall, this review advocates for a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach that balances technical proficiency with thorough preoperative counseling, aiming to achieve natural, durable, and satisfying results while minimizing complications.

CONCLUSIONS

1. This comprehensive review underscores the multifaceted nature of rhinoplasty, which combines surgical precision with aesthetic and functional goals. The analysis reveals that both open and closed rhinoplasty techniques have distinct advantages, with the open approach offering superior visualization for complex nasal deformities, and the closed technique favoring less invasive correction with potentially quicker recovery.
2. Across various methods—including structural grafting, spreader grafts, and suturing techniques—the evidence supports a trend toward more individualized surgical planning that prioritizes both internal nasal function and external harmony with facial features. Outcomes are generally favorable when procedures are performed by experienced surgeons using evidence-based protocols, and complication rates remain relatively low, particularly in primary rhinoplasty cases.
3. Patient satisfaction, a key outcome in rhinoplasty, tends to correlate with realistic preoperative expectations, effective surgeon–patient communication, and functional improvements alongside cosmetic results. Validated tools such as the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale have proven useful in quantifying both objective and subjective success. However, dissatisfaction and revision rates—reported in a minority of cases—highlight the complexity of nasal anatomy and the high standards of patient expectations, especially in cosmetic procedures.
4. Despite technological and methodological advances, the review identifies persistent challenges, including the subjective nature of aesthetic assessment, variability in outcome reporting, and the limited long-term follow-up data available. In addition, reconstructive rhinoplasty and revision surgeries pose unique surgical difficulties due to altered anatomy, scar tissue, and psychological burden on patients.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

1. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter studies using standardized reporting systems and long-term follow-up to better evaluate the durability of surgical results and functional improvements. The continued development and refinement of objective assessment tools—such as 3D imaging, digital morphometric analysis, and airflow modeling—may enhance surgical planning and outcome measurement. There is also a growing role for artificial intelligence and machine learning in preoperative simulation and risk stratification.
2. Moreover, qualitative research into patient experiences, expectations, and satisfaction can provide deeper insight into factors that influence perceived success and guide preoperative counseling strategies. As rhinoplasty continues to evolve, integration of regenerative techniques, biomaterials for grafting, and minimally invasive interventions may expand the scope of possibilities while reducing recovery time and complications.

REFERENCES

1. Kaplowitz LJ, Joseph EM. A Practical Approach for Learning Rhinoplasty Surgery. International Journal of Head and Neck Surgery [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 Jun 22];7(1):33–46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10001-1262
2. Baz A, Sidhom S, Amr W, Abdelaziz A, Anany A. Outcomes Of Open Versus Closed Rhinoplasty: A Prospective Comparative Clinical Study. Zagazig University Medical Journal [Internet]. 2023 Mar 5 [cited 2024 Jan 3];0(0). Available from: https://doi.org/10.21608/ZUMJ.2023.195216.2752
3. Stavrou D. Open Vs Closed Rhinoplasty: Discover the Best Rhinoplasty Procedure for You! [Internet]. EIPS. 2025 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://eips.com/a-breakdown-of-open-vs-closed-rhinoplasty/
4. Cochran CS, Marin VP. A systematic approach to open rhinoplasty. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery [Internet]. 2007 Sep [cited 2023 Feb 15];18(3):166–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otot.2007.07.005
5. Trenité N. RHINOPLASTY: BASIC APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES IN NASAL TIP SURGERY [Internet]. health.uct.ac.za. 2017 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://health.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/content_migration/health_uct_ac_za/1016/files/Rhinoplasty%2520basic%2520approaches%2520and%2520techniques%2520in%2520nasal%2520tip%2520surgery.pdf
6. Rettinger G. Risks and complications in rhinoplasty. Current Topics in Otorhinolaryngology [Internet]. 2007 Nov 30 [cited 2024 Jun 22];6(1):1–14. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51786546_Risks_and_complications_in_rhinoplasty
7. Jumeau P. Rhinoplasty Post-Operative Information [Internet]. melbourne-rhinoplasty. 2022 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://melbourne-rhinoplasty.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/MelbourneRhinoplastyPostOperativeInformation.pdf
8. Kensington Medical. Nose Job Recovery Time: Top Tips for a Smooth Healing Process [Internet]. Kensingtonmedical.co.uk. Kensington Medical; 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.kensingtonmedical.co.uk/blog/nose-job-recovery-time
9. Becker D. Rhinoplasty Recovery: A Timeline of Swelling Stages [Internet]. Becker Plastic Surgery. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.beckerplastics.com/blog/rhinoplasty-recovery-stages
10. Rocha PR. Efficacy of structured and conventional techniques on aesthetic and corrective rhinoplasty. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (RBCP) – Brazilian Journal of Plastic Sugery [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 Jun 22];32(1):28–36. Available from: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2017RBCP0005
11. Meretsky CR, Polychronis A, Clark D, Liovas D, Schiuma AT. Advantages and Disadvantages of Reconstructive and Preservation Rhinoplasty: Surgical Techniques, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Cureus [Internet]. 2024 Sep 9 [cited 2024 Jun 22];1(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69002
12. Eisa SH, Eldesoky MI, Elawamry MI. Functional and aesthetic outcomes in different methods of open septorhinoplasty. Al-Azhar Assiut Medical Journal [Internet]. 2025 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Jun 22];23(1):104–10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/azmj.azmj_70_24
13. Becker DG. Rhinoplasty Long Term Effects [Internet]. Rhinoplasty Archive. 2017 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.rhinoplastyarchive.com/articles/rhinoplasty-fundamentals/rhinoplasty-long-term-effects
14. Xiao H, Zhao Y, Liu L, Xiao M, Qiu W, Liu Y. Functional/Aesthetic Measures of Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A Review. Aesthetic Surgery Journal [Internet]. 2019 Feb 5 [cited 2024 Jun 22];39(10):1057–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz029
15. Filho G, Valiati A, Minuzzi A, Cunha T, Pires J, Garcia A, et al. Assessment of long-term patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty performed at the Plastic Surgery Department of Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Porto Alegre. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica [Internet]. 1AD [cited 2024 Jun 22];26(4):618–23. Available from: https://www.rbcp.org.br/details/898/assessment-of-long-term-patient-satisfaction-after-rhinoplasty-performed-at-the-plastic-surgery-department-of-santa-casa-de-misericordia-de-porto-aleg
16. Abbas OL. Revision rhinoplasty: measurement of patient-reported outcomes and analysis of predictive factors. SpringerPlus [Internet]. 2016 Sep 1 [cited 2020 Mar 6];5(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3166-5
17. Waljee J, McGlinn EP, Sears ED, Chung KC. Patient expectations and patient-reported outcomes in surgery: A systematic review. Surgery [Internet]. 2014 May [cited 2024 Jun 22];155(5):799–808. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170731/
18. Dunkin MA. Understanding Long-Term Surgical Outcomes Can Help Ensure Treatments Align With Patient Priorities – U.S. Medicine [Internet]. U.S. Medicine. 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.usmedicine.com/non-clinical-topics/equality/understanding-long-term-surgical-outcomes-can-help-ensure-treatments-align-with-patient-priorities/
19. Zhang K, Deane EC, Becker DG. Persistent cosmetic dissatisfaction in rhinoplasty & management of the difficult patient. Plastic and Aesthetic Research [Internet]. 2024 Jun 26 [cited 2024 Jun 22];11(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2023.111
20. Saraf A, Gupta N, Manhas M, Kalsotra P. Evaluation of quality of life after septorhinoplasty using Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation questionnaire. The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology [Internet]. 2023 May 16 [cited 2024 Mar 9];39(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-023-00445-9
21. Howldar S, Fida A, Allinjawi O, Zaqzoog F, Qurban G. Long-term cosmetic and functional outcomes of rhinoplasty: A cross sectional study of patients’ satisfaction. Saudi Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Jun 21];20(1):1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-8491.273913