In the Journals

Researchers review staging system for revision rhinoplasty

Researchers recently proposed a staging system to use with preoperative planning for revision rhinoplasty.

Using the TNM staging system for cancer as a model, researchers in Houston described three components that could be used to determine the overall difficulty of surgery for revision rhinoplasty.

The researchers proposed a “PGS” system. The “P” stands for a problem, which would include “a specific anatomic anomaly with which the patient presents.”

The “G” represents graft, the second component of the staging system, which would be based on the number of grafts needed for the required needs of the patient.

The third component, “S,” is based on the number of previous surgical procedures: All patients will have had at least one previous rhinoplasty procedure.

The researchers also added a category, “E, “for patient expectations. This stage would be considered after a patient’s condition has been determined with the PGS classification system. This classification could be jointly decided by the patient and surgeon, “because patient expectations should be discussed preoperatively.”

“The purpose of developing such a system to aid the physician in planning treatment, providing information about the prognosis, assisting in evaluating the results of treatment, and facilitating the exchange of information with the patient and other physicians,” the researchers wrote.

“The staging system described in this article may greatly help the surgeon with preoperative planning for revision rhinoplasty. We suggest using the staging form when assessing all patient who present for this procedure.” – by Bruce Thiel

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers recently proposed a staging system to use with preoperative planning for revision rhinoplasty.

Using the TNM staging system for cancer as a model, researchers in Houston described three components that could be used to determine the overall difficulty of surgery for revision rhinoplasty.

The researchers proposed a “PGS” system. The “P” stands for a problem, which would include “a specific anatomic anomaly with which the patient presents.”

The “G” represents graft, the second component of the staging system, which would be based on the number of grafts needed for the required needs of the patient.

The third component, “S,” is based on the number of previous surgical procedures: All patients will have had at least one previous rhinoplasty procedure.

The researchers also added a category, “E, “for patient expectations. This stage would be considered after a patient’s condition has been determined with the PGS classification system. This classification could be jointly decided by the patient and surgeon, “because patient expectations should be discussed preoperatively.”

“The purpose of developing such a system to aid the physician in planning treatment, providing information about the prognosis, assisting in evaluating the results of treatment, and facilitating the exchange of information with the patient and other physicians,” the researchers wrote.

“The staging system described in this article may greatly help the surgeon with preoperative planning for revision rhinoplasty. We suggest using the staging form when assessing all patient who present for this procedure.” – by Bruce Thiel

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.