Citations 2
Features of Importance in the Nasal Exam in Rhinoplasty
Longino, Elizabeth S., Kandathil, Cherian K. , Ahmad, Jamil , Baker, Stephen B., BERKOWITZ, R. LAURENCE, Bhrany, Amit D., Friedman, Oren A., Gryskiewicz, Joe M. , Hamilton, Grant S., Knott, Daniel, Marcus, Ben C., Oyer, Sam L., Patel, Priyesh N. , Pearlman, Steven J., Rohrich, Rod J., Totonchi, Ali , Weinfeld, Adam B., Wong, Brian J.F., Most, Sam P., Marcus, Ben C , Barrera, Jose Enrique , Cobo, Roxana , Friedman, Oren A , Hamilton, Grant S., Knott, P. Daniel, Oyer, Samuel L. , Rohrich, Rod J., Shah, Manish I., Spataro, Emily A. , Wong, Brian J. F. , Most, Sam P.
Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine | April 18, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available
Background: The most critical exam components in patients seeking rhinoplasty have not been established. Objective: To identify concordance among experienced rhinoplasty surgeons regarding the most important exam features for various deformities. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to board-certified facial plastic and plastic surgeons experienced in rhinoplasty, with seven nasal deformity categories: dorsal hump, crooked nose, boxy tip, pinched tip, droopy tip, saddle nose, and nonallergic nasal obstruction. For each, respondents were asked to rank the three most important anatomic regions to examine from the following: nasal bones, midvault cartilage, skin, radix, facial profile, lip, tip, septum, internal nasal valve, nostrils, inferior and middle turbinates. For each ranked region, up to three important features were chosen. Normalized Attention Scores (NAS) were calculated to determine agreement amongst surgeons. Results: A total of 13 facial plastic and 8 plastic surgeons were invited to participate and completed the questionnaire. All cases had high agreement demonstrated by NAS, with the dorsal hump case exhibiting the greatest variability in responses. Conclusions: In this survey of 21 rhinoplasty surgeons, there was general agreement regarding the most relevant anatomical structures and features, which may provide a conceptual foundation for identifying key exam features for seven common complaints in patients seeking rhinoplasty.
Consensus Statement on the Prevention and Management of Complications of Fully Ablative Laser Resurfacing of the Face
Kang, Bianca Y. , Cohen, Joel L. , Geronemus, Roy G. , Kilmer, Suzanne L. , Ross, E. Victor , Tanzi, Elizabeth L., Waibel, Jill , Alam, Murad, Alexiades, Macrene , Arndt, Kenneth A., Avram, Mathew M., Biesman, Brian S. , Bloom, Jason D. , Burns, A. Jay, DiGiorgio, Catherine M., Dover, Jeffrey S. , Fathizadeh, Sam, Esteves, Sara C., Goldberg, Gerald N., Hoss, Elika, Ibrahimi, Omar A. , Jalian, H. Ray, Kelly, Kristen M. , Munavalli, Girish Gilly , Pozner, Jason N. , Robb, Christopher W. , Saedi, Nazanin, Shumaker, Peter R. , Stankiewicz, Kelly, Wanner, Molly, Wu, Douglas C. , Wulkan, Adam J., Ortiz, Arisa , Ross, Edward Victor , Alexiades, Macrene , Chan, Henry H L , Fathizadeh, Sam , Kelly, Kristen M , Manuskiatti, Woraphong , Munavalli, Girish S , Robb, Chris W , Wong, Brian J. F. , Bhatia, Ashish C. , ESTEVES, SARA C., Gold, Michael H , Hædersdal, Merete , Marks, Lisa , Rossi, Anthony M.
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine | June 11, 2025 | Volume: 57 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 477-489
ABSTRACTObjectivesTo achieve consensus among expert laser surgeons on standards for the prevention and management of adverse events from fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face.Materials and MethodsDelphi study with two rounds of ratings and revisions until consensus was achieved. The draft set of statements was developed by a steering committee based on expert clinical experience. This was followed by two rounds of rating and revisions completed by an expert panel, then a virtual consensus meeting. In both rounds, respondents rated the draft statements on a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree) and optionally provided comments. The consensus meeting was supplemented by the results of a systematic review of the literature (from 2000 to 2023).ResultsTwo rounds of Delphi survey were completed by 34 participants across four countries. Represented specialties were dermatology, facial plastic surgery, plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery. The initial 105 statements from round 1 expanded to 112 in round 2, with 96 statements achieving consensus. These included possible adverse events (11 statements); absolute and relative contraindications to treatment (5 statements); preoperative care and antimicrobial prophylaxis precautions (16 statements); intraoperative precautions (17 statements); postoperative care (21 statements); monitoring for and management of infection (16 statements); management of pigmentation changes (6 statements); and management of scarring and incipient scarring (4 statements).ConclusionAn international consensus statement was developed for the prevention and management of complications associated with fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face. While expert practices vary, key factors for optimizing outcomes include careful patient selection, counseling, and meticulous pre‐ and postoperative care. Further research will improve our understanding of this treatment technique.