Morales CGM, Azcárate MNL

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 21-25
PDF size: 362.88 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective To make objective the subjective medical inspection, in the same way the patients perception respect the nasal tip projection, comparing this with objective measure methods, already known for this purpose, and by that, being able to evaluate their capacity as reference in Mexican population.
Material and methods A comparative and analytic study was done with 20 Mexican volunteers, taking photographs to analyze. We took three different variables for the assessment of the nasal tip projection; the measurement with a known objective method (Goode Method), the appreciation by the same volunteers about their own nose and the appreciation by an experienced otolaryngologist respect the photographs.
Results We included 20 volunteers, 50% female; mean age 41.1 years; 70% of volunteers found their nose with a normal nasal tip, while 10% found it under-projected and 20% over-projected. The physician found a normal nasal tip projection in 55%, underprojection in 25% and overprojection in 20%. With the Goode method we found 30% with normal nasal tip projection, 35% with under projection and 35% with overprojection. The agreement percentage between the Goode method and the observed by the patient was 45%, with a calculated Kappa of 0.167 (insignificant). The agreement percentage between the Goode method and the observed by the physician was 30%, with a calculated Kappa of -0.161 (no agreement). The agreement percentage between the observed by the patient and the observed by the physician was 40%, with a calculated Kappa of 0 (no agreement).
Conclusions The most important part of the evaluation is the medical opinion, without ignoring the nasal or facial analysis, useful as a communication tool between the patient and the doctor, in order to complete surgical plan.

REFERENCES

1. Zlatko Devcic BS, Rayikanti BA, Hevia JP, Popenko NA, et al. Nasal tip projection and facial attractiveness. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1388-1394.

2. Ingels K, Orhan KS. Measurement of preoperative and postoperative nasal tip projection and rotation. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8:411-415.

3. Werther JR, Freeman JP. Changes in nasal tip projection and rotation after septorhinoplasty: a cephalometric analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:728-733.

4. Toriumi DM. New concepts in nasal tip contouring. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8:156-185.

5. Baum S. Introduction. Ear Nose Throat J 1982;61:426-428.

6. Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the aesthetic face. New York: Thieme-Stratton, 1984;21.

7. Simons R. Nasal tip projection, ptosis, and supratip thickening. Ear Nose Throat J 1982;61:452-455.

8. Crumley RL, Lanser M. Quantitative analysis of nasal tip projection. Laryngoscope 1988;98:202-208.

9. Spörri S, Simmen D, Briner HR, Jones N. Objective assessment of tip projection and the nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:295-298.

10. Webster RC, Davidson TM, Rubin FF, Smith RC. Recording projection of nasal landmarks in rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 1977;87:1207-1211.