Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: The impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention

6Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: A subset of patients who require revision rhinoplasty will change surgeons for their second procedure. We sought to investigate the rate of surgeon change and identify associated predictors using a population-based, ambulatory surgery database. Methods/study design: In this retrospective review, 9172 rhinoplasty procedures over a 5-year period were analyzed using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (SASD). We identified 380 patients who had at least two rhinoplasty procedures between 2009 and 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of patients changing surgeons for their second documented rhinoplasty. Results: Among the 380/8531 (4.4%) patients who underwent a revision rhinoplasty, 117/380 (30.8%) patients changed surgeons for their subsequent procedure within a 5-year period. Multivariable logistic regression identified a lower likelihood of surgeon change in patients undergoing functional or cosmetic cartilage grafting procedures (OR 0.342, 95%CI 0.155-0.714, P =.006) and in patients who self-paid for their procedure (OR 0.476, 95%CI 0.225-0.984, P =.048). One hundred twenty-four patients underwent a cosmetic revision rhinoplasty and were twice as likely to change surgeons as those who underwent functional revision rhinoplasty (OR 2.042 95%CI 1.046-4.050, P =.038). Time elapsed (>2 years) was positively correlated with likelihood of surgeon change (OR 1.236, 95%CI 1.153-1.333, P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Crawford, K. L., Lee, J. H., Panuganti, B. A., Burton, B. N., Jafari, A., Hom, D. B., & Watson, D. (2020). Change in surgeon for revision rhinoplasty: The impact of patient demographics and surgical technique on patient retention. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 5(6), 1044–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.496

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free