The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-4329
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2025
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Rusetsky Yu.Yu.

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health;
Central State Medical Academy of the Department of Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation

Panasenko E.I.

Central State Medical Academy

Shcheglov A.N.

Central State Medical Academy of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation

Moroz S.E.

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Analysis of tools for assessing the results of rhinoplasty. Prospects for validation and cultural and linguistic adaptation of the ROE questionnaire

Authors:

Rusetsky Yu.Yu., Panasenko E.I., Shcheglov A.N., Moroz S.E.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Rhinology. 2022;30(2): 86‑92

DOI: 10.17116/rosrino20223002186

Read: 1060 times

Download PDF (RU)
Contact the author
Table of contents

ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR ASSESSING THE RESULTS OF RHINOPLASTY. PROSPECTS FOR VALIDATION AND CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC ADAPTATION OF THE ROE QUESTIONNAIRE
ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR ASSESSING THE RESULTS OF RHINOPLASTY. PROSPECTS FOR VALIDATION AND CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC ADAPTATION OF THE ROE QUESTIONNAIRE

To cite this article:

Rusetsky YuYu, Panasenko EI, Shcheglov AN, Moroz SE. Analysis of tools for assessing the results of rhinoplasty. Prospects for validation and cultural and linguistic adaptation of the ROE questionnaire. Russian Rhinology. 2022;30(2):86‑92. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/rosrino20223002186

Подписка 2026 Российская ринология (Russian Rhinology)
МСФ на ЯМ
Использование инфографики авторами научных работ
Close metadata
Abstract:

Deformation of the external nose, combined with impaired nasal breathing, has a significant impact on the quality of life. Obviously, the pre- and postoperative assessment of the patient’s condition should include not only a complete otorhinolaryngological history, endoscopic examination of the nasal cavity, computed tomography, but also a questionnaire that will allow us to evaluate this parameter. At the same time, the questionnaire used must meet strict requirements and reflect the real state of the patient. The paper presents an analysis of special questionnaires designed to assess the results of rhinoplasty, and identifies the most promising of them for use in the Russian-speaking population. The ROE questionnaire is an effective and understandable tool that is easy to use. Its application will provide an even more personalized approach to each patient, as well as open up more opportunities for presenting the results of work in foreign literature. These factors testify to the prospects of its validation and cultural and linguistic adaptation.

Keywords:

questionnaire
rhinoplasty
quality of life

Authors:

Rusetsky Yu.Yu.

National Medical Research Center for Children’s Health;
Central State Medical Academy of the Department of Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation

Panasenko E.I.

Central State Medical Academy

Shcheglov A.N.

Central State Medical Academy of the Office of the President of the Russian Federation

Moroz S.E.

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Received:

21.02.2022

Accepted:

19.03.2022

Close metadata

References:

  1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. International Survey on Aesthetic. Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2017. ISAPS Procedures Study Results. Hanover: ISAPS; 2017.
  2. Friedman O, Cekic E, Gunel C. Functional Rhinoplasty. Facial plastic surgery clinics of North America. 2017;25(2):195-199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2016.12.004
  3. Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y. Evaluation of Preoperative and Postoperative Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2018;141(3):603-611.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004102
  4. Gökçe Kütük S, Arıkan OK. Evaluation of the effects of open and closed rhinoplasty on the psychosocial stress level and quality of life of rhinoplasty patients. Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2019;72(8):1347-1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.03.020
  5. Niehaus R, Kovacs L, Machens H-G, Herschbach P, Papadopulos N. Quality of Life — Changes after Rhinoplasty. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2017;33(05):530-536.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1606572
  6. Wähmann MS, Bulut OC, Bran GM, Veit JA, Riedel F. Systematic Review of Quality-of-Life Measurement After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2018;42(6):1635-1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1199-6
  7. World health organization. WHOQOL measuring quality of life. Programme on mental health. WHO/MSA/MNH/PSF/97.4. Geneva: WHO; 1997.
  8. Haraldstad K, Wahl A, Andenæs R, Andersen JR, Andersen MH, Beisland E, Borge CR, Engebretsen E, Eisemann M, Halvorsrud L, Hanssen TA, Haugstvedt A, Haugland T, Johansen VA, Larsen MH, Løvereide L, Løyland B, Kvarme LG, Moons P, Norekvål TM, Ribu L, Rohde GE, Urstad KH, Helseth S; LIVSFORSK network. A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. 2019;28(10):2641-2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9
  9. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2003;56(1):52-60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00537-1
  10. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(1):13-35.  https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002
  11. Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2007;15(2):126-134.  https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200702000-00007
  12. Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Medical Care. 1997;35(5):522-537.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199705000-00008
  13. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473-483. 
  14. Koenraads SPC, Aarts MCJ, van der Veen EL, Grolman W, Stegeman I. Quality of life questionnaires in otorhinolaryngology: a systematic overview. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2016;41(6):681-688.  https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12586
  15. Ojo B, Genden EM, Teng MS, Milbury K, Misiukiewicz KJ, Badr H. A systematic review of head and neck cancer quality of life assessment instruments. Oral Oncology. 2012;48(10):923-937.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.03.025
  16. de Almeida JR, Witterick IJ, Gullane PJ, Gentili F, Lohfeld L, Ringash J, Thoma A, Vescan AD. Quality of life instruments for skull base pathology: systematic review and methodologic appraisal. Head & Neck. 2013;35(9):1221-1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23120
  17. van Oene CM, van Reij EJ, Sprangers MA, Fokkens WJ. Quality-assessment of disease-specific quality of life questionnaires for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis: a systematic review. Allergy. 2007;62(12):1359-1371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01482.x
  18. Strasser EJ. An objective grading system for the evaluation of cosmetic surgical results. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1999;104(7):2282-2285. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199912000-00056
  19. Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2017;274(4):1807-1811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4359-9
  20. Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Thomassin JM, Dessi P, Michel J. The MiRa scale, a new standardised scale for evaluating nasal deformities before and after septorhinoplasty: A prospective study comparing patient satisfaction and the surgeon’s assessment. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2017;42(6):1350-1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12885
  21. Lekakis G, Picavet VA, Gabriëls L, Grietens J, Hellings PW. Body Dysmorphic Disorder in aesthetic rhinoplasty: Validating a new screening tool. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(8):1739-1745. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25963
  22. Lohuis PJFM, Hakim S, Duivesteijn W, Knobbe A, Tasman AJ. Benefits of a short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013;132(6):913-923.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000434403.83692.95
  23. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA, Baker SB, Badia L, Schwitzer JA, Pusic AL. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Scales for Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 2016;18(1):27-35.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1445
  24. van Zijl FVWJ, Mokkink LB, Haagsma JA, Datema FR. Evaluation of Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 2019;21(2):152-162.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1639
  25. Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP. The 10-Item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for Functional and Cosmetic Rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 2018;20(1):37-42.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2017.1083
  26. Zholtikov VV, Korableva NP, Lebedeva YuV, Saltychev M, Most SM, Moubayed SP. Validation of the Russian-language version of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;2:81-86. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202102181
  27. Moolenburgh SE, Mureau MA, Duivenvoorden HJ, Hofer SO. Validation of a questionnaire assessing patient’s aesthetic and functional outcome after nasal reconstruction: the patient NAFEQ-score. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2009;62(5):656-662.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2007.07.024
  28. Bulut C, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Baumann I. Development and validation of the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology. 2014;52(4):315-319.  https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin13.098
  29. Bulut OC, Wallner F, Oladokun D, Kayser C, Plath M, Schulz E, Plinkert PK, Baumann I. Long-term quality of life changes after primary septorhinoplasty. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(4):987-991.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1761-8
  30. Bulut OC, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Prochnow S, Kuhnt C, Baumann I. Quality of life after septorhinoplasty measured with the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology International Journal. 2015;53(1):54-58.  https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin14.008
  31. Takhar A, Stephens J, Randhawa PS, Poirrier AL, Andrews P. Validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-23 in septorhinoplasty surgery. Rhinology International Journal. 2014;52(4):301-304.  https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin14.009
  32. Poirrier AL, Ahluwalia S, Goodson A, Ellis M, Bentley M, Andrews P. Is the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 a suitable evaluation for septorhinoplasty? Laryngoscope. 2013;123(1):76-81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23615
  33. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2000;24(3):192-197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002660010031
  34. Isenberg SF, Rosenfeld RM. Problems and pitfalls in community-based outcomes research. Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery. 1997;116(6 Pt 1):662-665. 
  35. Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Archives of facial plastic surgery. 2001;3(3):198-201.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.3.3.198
  36. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Lopes AS, Brandão KV, Sousa LBG, Suguri VM, Gregório LC. Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Quality of Life Research. 2013;23(3):953-958.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0539-x
  37. Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I. Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2016;273(9):2569-2573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-3920-x
  38. Çelik M, Altıntaş A. The Turkish Version of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation Questionnaire: Validation and Clinical Application. Balkan Medical Journal. 2019;36(2):129-133.  https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2018.2018.1129
  39. Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Brandão KV, Lopes AS, Garcia LB, Suguri VM, Gregório LC. Normal values for the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2012;78(4):76-79.  https://doi.org/10.1590/s1808-86942012000400015
  40. Bilgin E, Say MA, Baklacı D. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Primary Septorhinoplasty Using the Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation Questionnaire. Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11777. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11777
  41. Haddady Abianeh S, Moradi Bajestani S, Rahmati J, Shahrbaf MA, Fatehi Meybodi A. Evaluation of Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes After Open Rhinoplasty: A Quasi-experimental Study by the Aid of ROE and RHINO Questionnaires. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2021;45(2):663-669.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01905-w
  42. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1993;46(12):1417-1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n
  43. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2010;17(2):268-274.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  44. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education. 2011;2:53-55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  45. Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
  46. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2000;53(5):459-468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1
  47. Roberts P, Priest H, Traynor M. Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard. 2006;20(44):41-45.  https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.07.20.44.41.c6560
Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Contact us
If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions, please use this feedback form.
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.
Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.