Quality of Life (QoL) and Outcome After Preservation Rhinoplasty (PR) Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) Questionnaire-A Prospective Observational Single-Centre Study

Stergiou G, Schweigler A, Finocchi V, Fortuny CG, Saban Y, Tremp M.

PubMed 35169915 Publisher (DOI)Free full text (PMC)

What this paper says

In 58 preservation rhinoplasty patients followed a mean 19.7 months, satisfaction scores rose from 37.9 to 81.25, alongside a measured widening of the internal nasal valve angle from 19.88 to 22.04 degrees.

Overview

Little is known about quality of life after preservation rhinoplasty. This prospective single centre private practice study assessed satisfaction with a validated questionnaire. Fifty eight patients, 41 female and 17 male, mean age 32 plus or minus 9.7 years, had primary preservation rhinoplasty between 2017 and 2021.

Sections of note

Prospective cohort study, single centre; 58 patients; the journal assigns level of evidence IV.
Assessment used the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation questionnaire before surgery and at final follow up.
Subgroup analyses compared questionnaire answers with cone beam CT imaging before surgery and at final follow up.
Mean follow up was 19.7 plus or minus 7.9 months, range 1 to 50 months.
Overall satisfaction rose from 37.9 plus or minus 9.2 to 81.25 plus or minus 14.17, P less than 0.0001.
The greatest improvements were in nose appearance, breathing and self confidence.
Self reported breathing improved from 1.471 plus or minus 0.90 to 3.1 plus or minus 0.88, P less than 0.0001.
The internal nasal valve angle widened from 19.88 plus or minus 3.3 to 22.04 plus or minus 4.1 degrees, P equals 0.0231.

What it means for a patient

Satisfaction more than doubled, and the improvement in reported breathing was matched by a measured widening of the narrowest part of the airway.
Preservation surgery leaves the roof of the nose intact, which is the stated reason the valve angle is not narrowed.
Fifty eight patients in one private practice with no comparison group is limited evidence.
Follow up ranged from 1 to 50 months, so some patients were assessed very early.

Why this paper matters

Preservation rhinoplasty is claimed to protect the internal nasal valve, and that claim has rarely been tested with imaging alongside patient scores. This study pairs both. Whether preservation outperforms conventional hump removal on these measures is not addressed.

Terms

Preservation rhinoplasty: keeping and repositioning the existing framework rather than removing and rebuilding it.
Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation: a validated satisfaction questionnaire scored out of 100.
Internal nasal valve: the narrowest part of the nasal airway, where the septum meets the upper cartilages.
Cone beam CT: a three dimensional scan using a cone shaped X ray beam.
Prospective cohort: a group followed forward in time from enrollment.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

Abstract

Background: Rhinoplasty is a challenging procedure, and the ultimate goal is not only to restore the function and youthful appearance, but also to improve the quality of life (QoL). Little is known about the QoL after preservation rhinoplasty (PR). The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PR by using a validated questionnaire.

Patients And Methods: Patients undergoing primary PR were included in this prospective cohort single-centre (private) study. Overall, 58 patients (41 female and 17 male patients, mean age 32 ± 9.7 years) were operated on between 2017 and 2021. Patient assessment regarding their outcome was evaluated before surgery and at final follow-up using a validated questionnaire (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire = ROE). Subgroup analyses were performed between the ROE questions and radiological analysis by using the cone-beam computed tomography (CT) before surgery and at final follow-up.

Results: After a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 7.9 months (range = 1-50 months), a high overall patient satisfaction was observed (37.9 ± 9.2 vs. 81.25 ± 14.17, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed the highest improvement in nose appearance, breathing, and self-confidence after surgery. The improvement of subjective breathing (1.471 ± 0.90 vs. 3.1 ± 0.88; p<0.0001) goes in line with an overall improved internal nasal valve (INV) angle (19.88° ± 3.3° vs. 22.04° ± 4.1°, p = 0.0231).

Conclusions: Our study showed a high patient satisfaction after PR as evaluated by the ROE, which goes in line with aesthetics and function.

Level Of Evidence Iv: 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 .

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).