Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty: A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result

Sarah Persing, Andrew Timberlake, Sarika Madari, Derek Steinbacher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Computer imaging has become increasingly popular for rhinoplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) analysis permits a more comprehensive view from multiple vantage points. However, the predictability and concordance between the simulated and actual result have not been morphometrically studied. The purpose of this study was to aesthetically and quantitatively compare the simulated to actual rhinoplasty result. Methods: A retrospective review of 3D images (VECTRA, Canfield) for rhinoplasty patients was performed. Images (preop, simulated, and actual) were randomized. A blinded panel of physicians rated the images (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The image series considered “best” was also recorded. A quantitative assessment of nasolabial angle and tip projection was compared. Paired and two-sample t tests were performed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05 as significant). Results: Forty patients were included. 67.5% of preoperative images were rated as poor (mean = 1.7). The simulation received a mean score of 2.9 (good in 60% of cases). 82.5% of actual cases were rated good to excellent (mean 3.4) (P < 0.001). Overall, the panel significantly preferred the actual postoperative result in 77.5% of cases compared to the simulation in 22.5% of cases (P < 0.001). The actual nasal tip was more projected compared to the simulations for both males and females. There was no significant difference in nasal tip rotation between simulated and postoperative groups. Conclusion: 3D simulation is a powerful communication and planning tool in rhinoplasty. In this study, the actual result was deemed more aesthetic than the simulated image. Surgeon experience is important to translate the plan and achieve favorable postoperative results. 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1331-1335
Number of pages5
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Volume42
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Rhinoplasty
Three-Dimensional Imaging
Nose
Evidence-Based Medicine
Esthetics
Communication
Physicians

Keywords

  • Actual result
  • Rhinoplasty
  • Simulation
  • Three-dimensional imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty : A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result. / Persing, Sarah; Timberlake, Andrew; Madari, Sarika; Steinbacher, Derek.

In: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 5, 01.10.2018, p. 1331-1335.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Persing, Sarah ; Timberlake, Andrew ; Madari, Sarika ; Steinbacher, Derek. / Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty : A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result. In: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2018 ; Vol. 42, No. 5. pp. 1331-1335.
@article{bef66050d251480a8e2522fd40a45643,
title = "Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty: A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result",
abstract = "Purpose: Computer imaging has become increasingly popular for rhinoplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) analysis permits a more comprehensive view from multiple vantage points. However, the predictability and concordance between the simulated and actual result have not been morphometrically studied. The purpose of this study was to aesthetically and quantitatively compare the simulated to actual rhinoplasty result. Methods: A retrospective review of 3D images (VECTRA, Canfield) for rhinoplasty patients was performed. Images (preop, simulated, and actual) were randomized. A blinded panel of physicians rated the images (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The image series considered “best” was also recorded. A quantitative assessment of nasolabial angle and tip projection was compared. Paired and two-sample t tests were performed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05 as significant). Results: Forty patients were included. 67.5{\%} of preoperative images were rated as poor (mean = 1.7). The simulation received a mean score of 2.9 (good in 60{\%} of cases). 82.5{\%} of actual cases were rated good to excellent (mean 3.4) (P < 0.001). Overall, the panel significantly preferred the actual postoperative result in 77.5{\%} of cases compared to the simulation in 22.5{\%} of cases (P < 0.001). The actual nasal tip was more projected compared to the simulations for both males and females. There was no significant difference in nasal tip rotation between simulated and postoperative groups. Conclusion: 3D simulation is a powerful communication and planning tool in rhinoplasty. In this study, the actual result was deemed more aesthetic than the simulated image. Surgeon experience is important to translate the plan and achieve favorable postoperative results. 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.",
keywords = "Actual result, Rhinoplasty, Simulation, Three-dimensional imaging",
author = "Sarah Persing and Andrew Timberlake and Sarika Madari and Derek Steinbacher",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00266-018-1151-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1331--1335",
journal = "Aesthetic Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0364-216X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty

T2 - A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result

AU - Persing, Sarah

AU - Timberlake, Andrew

AU - Madari, Sarika

AU - Steinbacher, Derek

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Purpose: Computer imaging has become increasingly popular for rhinoplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) analysis permits a more comprehensive view from multiple vantage points. However, the predictability and concordance between the simulated and actual result have not been morphometrically studied. The purpose of this study was to aesthetically and quantitatively compare the simulated to actual rhinoplasty result. Methods: A retrospective review of 3D images (VECTRA, Canfield) for rhinoplasty patients was performed. Images (preop, simulated, and actual) were randomized. A blinded panel of physicians rated the images (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The image series considered “best” was also recorded. A quantitative assessment of nasolabial angle and tip projection was compared. Paired and two-sample t tests were performed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05 as significant). Results: Forty patients were included. 67.5% of preoperative images were rated as poor (mean = 1.7). The simulation received a mean score of 2.9 (good in 60% of cases). 82.5% of actual cases were rated good to excellent (mean 3.4) (P < 0.001). Overall, the panel significantly preferred the actual postoperative result in 77.5% of cases compared to the simulation in 22.5% of cases (P < 0.001). The actual nasal tip was more projected compared to the simulations for both males and females. There was no significant difference in nasal tip rotation between simulated and postoperative groups. Conclusion: 3D simulation is a powerful communication and planning tool in rhinoplasty. In this study, the actual result was deemed more aesthetic than the simulated image. Surgeon experience is important to translate the plan and achieve favorable postoperative results. 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.

AB - Purpose: Computer imaging has become increasingly popular for rhinoplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) analysis permits a more comprehensive view from multiple vantage points. However, the predictability and concordance between the simulated and actual result have not been morphometrically studied. The purpose of this study was to aesthetically and quantitatively compare the simulated to actual rhinoplasty result. Methods: A retrospective review of 3D images (VECTRA, Canfield) for rhinoplasty patients was performed. Images (preop, simulated, and actual) were randomized. A blinded panel of physicians rated the images (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The image series considered “best” was also recorded. A quantitative assessment of nasolabial angle and tip projection was compared. Paired and two-sample t tests were performed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05 as significant). Results: Forty patients were included. 67.5% of preoperative images were rated as poor (mean = 1.7). The simulation received a mean score of 2.9 (good in 60% of cases). 82.5% of actual cases were rated good to excellent (mean 3.4) (P < 0.001). Overall, the panel significantly preferred the actual postoperative result in 77.5% of cases compared to the simulation in 22.5% of cases (P < 0.001). The actual nasal tip was more projected compared to the simulations for both males and females. There was no significant difference in nasal tip rotation between simulated and postoperative groups. Conclusion: 3D simulation is a powerful communication and planning tool in rhinoplasty. In this study, the actual result was deemed more aesthetic than the simulated image. Surgeon experience is important to translate the plan and achieve favorable postoperative results. 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.

KW - Actual result

KW - Rhinoplasty

KW - Simulation

KW - Three-dimensional imaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053421742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053421742&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00266-018-1151-9

DO - 10.1007/s00266-018-1151-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 29789868

AN - SCOPUS:85053421742

VL - 42

SP - 1331

EP - 1335

JO - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

JF - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

SN - 0364-216X

IS - 5

ER -