07/25/2024
It is the reality of aesthetic surgery that not every patient will be completely satisfied with the outcome of their procedure. At the start of my career, as I was developing my skills and building experience, my revision rate for primary rhinoplasty was over 10%. Through the years, this number gradually decreased and for the past 10 years has been stable at around 3%. I believe this reflects the natural progression of my judgment and abilities as a surgeon as well as my effectiveness in communicating and setting expectations. When I do encounter a patient who is unhappy with an outcome, I believe it is important to listen to their concerns, analyze the nose, review the maneuvers performed in the primary surgery, and formulate a thoughtful plan. My wonderful patient pictured underwent primary rhinoplasty with me over a year ago. Our goals at that time were focused on reducing the size of the nose from the side by reducing the height of the bridge and de-projecting the tip. We aimed for a significant reduction, understanding that this would result in increased width from the front. Although I offset some of this width through other maneuvers during the surgery (alar base reduction, narrowing bones, tip plasty), the result was a nose that my patient felt was wider than she was comfortable with. After a year of observing the nose and trying steroid injections to reduce width, we concluded that although she loved the nose from the side and ¾ views, she was simply not comfortable with the shape of the nose from the front and base. I therefore performed a revision on her nose in which I narrowed her mid vault, tip, and performed additional alar base reduction. Immediately after the cast came off, it was clear that she was happy and relieved and comfortable with her new nose. The photos show pre-op on the left, one year post-op in the middle, and one week post revision on the right. You can see the significant reduction in profile size from the primary surgery but also some increased width. You can also see the effect of the revision in which the width is addressed by retaining the improvement from the original surgery. (Continue in the comments below…)