Abstract:T study aims to determine the motivations, outcomes, and prevalence of unfavorable results in secondary rhinoplasty patients. It is clearly written. First, however, we should define terms. Revisionary surgery is one in which the surgeon performed the prior procedures. Secondary surgery is one in which the surgeon did not perform the prior procedures. The distinction is important because the degree of difficulty and outcome can be quite different between the two. The 150 “secondary” patients in this study included both types of patients. What we agree with and are happy to learn is that the depressed and body dysmorphic disorder patients did not have a worse anatomic deformity than those who were not depressed, indicating that the cause of their deformity alone did not justify their unhappiness. That would be in accord with other studies that have demonstrated the disconnect between emotionality and physical deformity in patients with psychological issues. Of interest, the rate of body dysmorphic disorder in cosmetic patients has been reported to be 5 to 15 percent.1 Moreover, Ende et al.2 reported that 84 percent of surgeons in their study failed to recognize body dysmorphic disorder before operating on the patient. Thus, the fact that Dr. Constantian discovered postoperatively that 2 percent of patients exhibited signs of body dysmorphic disorder is a testimony to his ability to weed out that problem before surgery. This study found that the motivation for secondary (including revisionary) surgery due to new and unresolved problems was 74 percent. Strikingly, only 1 percent of patients had airway obstruction as their number one motivation and at first glance that fact might suggest a glaring difference between this and other studies. For example, Chauhan et al.3 indicated that the second most commonly cited complaint was nasal airway obstruction (36 percent). In the Constantian study, however, symptoms were ranked in terms of the primary factor within various categories, e.g., new or uncorrected symptoms. It is conceivable that many of the 70 percent of patients who had obstructive airway signs in the Constantian study might have listed that symptom as their number-two complaint. A glaring difference in results may not exist at all between the two studies. However, if one wishes to claim no significant difference between secondary rhinoplasty patients and other cosmetic or reconstructive patients, a second and/or third cohort of those patients for comparison would be helpful. On the question as to whether secondary patients are difficult to please, we have some concerns. In this study, 14 percent of patients were demanding of the surgeon’s and staff’s resources, and we do not know what the percentage was for the primary patients. On the other hand, there was not much difference in the revision rate: 11 percent for secondaries versus 7.8 percent for primaries. Moreover, Dr. Constantian noted that 97 percent of the patients were happy with their outcomes. Those are impressive numbers and a testimony to his skills. A definitive answer would be helped by contrasting secondary patients to a cohort of primary patients. In our experience, the primary patient is generally excited and eager for surgery. He/she has no reason to distrust the surgeon. The secondary and revisionary patient may have been burned and is often anxious and accompanied by various personality disorders.4 The secondary patient has taken time to learn about rhinoplasty so as to “not make that mistake again” and comes in with a From the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco. Received for publication May 12, 2012; accepted May 18, 2012. Copyright ©2012 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Multiwavelength spectral and high time resolution observations of SWIFT J1753.5-0127: new activity?

Ecdysteroid and Chitinase Fluctuations in the Western Tarnished Plant Bug (lygus Hesperus) Prior to Molt Indicate Roles in Development

Molting-related proteases in the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens.

The role of neuropeptides in regulating ecdysis and reproduction in the hemimetabolous insect Rhodnius prolixus

Neuroendocrine control of larval ecdysis behavior in Drosophila: complex regulation by partially redundant neuropeptides

Ecdysone Receptor Controls Wing Morphogenesis and Melanization During Rice Planthopper Metamorphosis

Prognostic factors and early predictability of sustained viral response with peginterferon alfa-2a (40KD).

Discussion: What Motivates Secondary Rhinoplasty? A Study of 150 Consecutive Patients

Child psychiatry perspectives: accountability and the future of child psychiatry.

Regulation of Insect Steroid Hormone Biosynthesis by Innervating Peptidergic Neurons.

Central peptidergic ensembles associated with organization of an innate behavior

Interindividual variation in the capacity-limited renal glucuronidation of probenecid by humans

Neuromodulation of the locust frontal ganglion during the moult: a novel role for insect ecdysis peptides

Large-scale RNAi screen of G protein-coupled receptors involved in larval growth, molting and metamorphosis in the red flour beetle

Behavioral events and functional analysis of bursicon signal during adult eclosion in the 28-spotted larger potato ladybird

Knockdown of a β-Adrenergic-Like Octopamine Receptor Affects Locomotion and Reproduction of Tribolium castaneum

[On the problem of discontinuation of antiepileptic treatment before EEG examination].

Cuticular protein genes are involved with insecticide resistance mechanism in red flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)

Radiometric Non-Uniformity Characterization and Correction of Landsat 8 OLI Using Earth Imagery-Based Techniques

RNAi-Mediated Functional Analysis of Bursicon Genes Related to Adult Cuticle Formation and Tanning in the Honeybee, Apis mellifera

Neuropeptide Bursicon Influences Reproductive Physiology in Tribolium Castaneum