Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Rhinoplasty: A 10-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery

Michael J Stein,Selcen S Yuksel,John Harrast,Peter J Taub,Alan Matarasso,Arun K Gosain
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03599-2
Abstract:Background: The American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) has collected data on cosmetic surgery from member surgeons since 2003. These data offer valuable information on national trends in clinical practice. Objectives: The present study was performed to analyze trends in rhinoplasty over the last decade. Methods: Tracer data were compared between two cohorts 2012-2016 (early cohort "EC") and 2017-2021 (recent cohort "RC"). Data included patient demographics and surgical techniques. Results were considered in the context of current EBM-based guidance in the plastic surgery literature. Results: Data from 730 rhinoplasties (270 EC and 460 RC) were analyzed. The median age was 30 years, and the most common patient concern was the nasal dorsum (79%). In the RC group, fewer patients voiced concerns about tip projection (58% vs 43%, p = 0.0002) and more complained of functional airway problems (38% vs 49%, p = 0.004). An open approach was most common (83%). Septoplasty (47% vs 52%, p = 0.005), caudal septum repositioning (14% vs 23%, p = 0.002), and tip rotation maneuvers (32% vs 49%, p < 0.0001) became more popular. There was also an increase in the use of spreader grafts (35% vs 45%, p = 0.01) and columellar strut grafts (42% vs 50%, p = 0.04), while there has been a decrease in alar base resection (17% vs 10%, p = 0.007) and non-cartilaginous dorsum/radix augmentation (9% vs 4%, p = 0.02). Conclusions: ABPS tracer data provide an excellent resource for the objective assessment of procedures in plastic surgery. The present study is the first to highlight evolving trends in rhinoplasty over the last 10 years. Level of evidence iii: 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 .
What problem does this paper attempt to address?