Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Jake A Alford, Sean McCleary, Jason Roostaeian
{"title":"Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty.","authors":"Jake A Alford, Sean McCleary, Jason Roostaeian","doi":"10.1093/asj/sjae221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The inherent subjectivity in aesthetic outcomes presents a unique challenge in assessing rhinoplasty. Crowdsourcing has provided a new metric for objective analysis. The authors designed a retrospective study to compare the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aim to objectively quantify the relative aesthetic advantages of performing a dorsal preservation technique. Additionally, we aim to demonstrate the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating any plastic surgery aesthetic outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients' preoperative and postoperative photos were divided two cohorts. Photos were evaluated by crowdworkers using a secure online rating platform on the overall nasal appearance, the dorsal profile, the dorsal aesthetic line symmetry, the dorsal contour, and rate their confidence on whether a patient had undergone surgery. A \"delta\" was calculated by comparing preoperative to postoperative states to represent an absolute value of improvement after surgery. Each cohort was compared using non-paired T-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The structural rhinoplasty cohort included 34 patients. The dorsal preservation cohort included 30 patients. Both cohorts demonstrated improved aesthetic outcomes (dorsal preservation [0.300, 95% CI 0.047]; structural [0.377, 95% CI 0.055]). When raters were asked to predict whether a patient had surgery, the correlation coefficient of the structural cohort (0.74) suggested that a crowdworker was better able to identify whether a patient had surgery. The correlation coefficient in the dorsal preservation cohort (-0.0554) suggested the raters were unable to identify which patients had surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found significant improvements in overall aesthetic outcomes with both techniques, while a more natural \"unoperated\" outcome was achieved when performing a dorsal preservation technique. We also provide evidence of the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":7728,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae221","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The inherent subjectivity in aesthetic outcomes presents a unique challenge in assessing rhinoplasty. Crowdsourcing has provided a new metric for objective analysis. The authors designed a retrospective study to compare the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty.

Objectives: We aim to objectively quantify the relative aesthetic advantages of performing a dorsal preservation technique. Additionally, we aim to demonstrate the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating any plastic surgery aesthetic outcome.

Methods: Patients' preoperative and postoperative photos were divided two cohorts. Photos were evaluated by crowdworkers using a secure online rating platform on the overall nasal appearance, the dorsal profile, the dorsal aesthetic line symmetry, the dorsal contour, and rate their confidence on whether a patient had undergone surgery. A "delta" was calculated by comparing preoperative to postoperative states to represent an absolute value of improvement after surgery. Each cohort was compared using non-paired T-tests.

Results: The structural rhinoplasty cohort included 34 patients. The dorsal preservation cohort included 30 patients. Both cohorts demonstrated improved aesthetic outcomes (dorsal preservation [0.300, 95% CI 0.047]; structural [0.377, 95% CI 0.055]). When raters were asked to predict whether a patient had surgery, the correlation coefficient of the structural cohort (0.74) suggested that a crowdworker was better able to identify whether a patient had surgery. The correlation coefficient in the dorsal preservation cohort (-0.0554) suggested the raters were unable to identify which patients had surgery.

Conclusions: We found significant improvements in overall aesthetic outcomes with both techniques, while a more natural "unoperated" outcome was achieved when performing a dorsal preservation technique. We also provide evidence of the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcomes.

对鼻背保留整形术美学效果的众包评估。
背景:美学效果固有的主观性给鼻整形术的评估带来了独特的挑战。众包为客观分析提供了新的衡量标准。作者设计了一项回顾性研究,比较保背隆鼻术与结构性隆鼻术的美学效果:我们旨在客观量化保留鼻背技术在美学上的相对优势。此外,我们还想证明使用众包作为评估任何整形手术美学效果的高效可靠方法的有效性:方法:将患者的术前和术后照片分为两组。照片由众包者通过一个安全的在线评分平台对鼻部整体外观、鼻背轮廓、鼻背美学线对称性、鼻背轮廓进行评估,并对患者是否接受过手术进行信心评分。通过比较术前和术后的状态,计算出 "delta",以表示术后改善的绝对值。采用非配对 T 检验对每个组群进行比较:结果:结构性鼻整形组包括 34 名患者。结果:结构性鼻整形组包括 34 名患者,鼻背保留组包括 30 名患者。两组患者的美学效果均有所改善(鼻背保留[0.300,95% CI 0.047];结构性[0.377,95% CI 0.055])。当要求评分者预测患者是否进行了手术时,结构队列的相关系数(0.74)表明,人群工作者能更好地识别患者是否进行了手术。保背组的相关系数(-0.0554)表明,评分者无法确定哪些患者进行了手术:结论:我们发现两种技术都能明显改善整体美学效果,而采用保留背侧技术则能获得更自然的 "未手术 "效果。我们还提供了使用众包作为评估美学效果的高效可靠方法的有效性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
20.70%
发文量
309
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Surgery Journal is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on scientific developments and clinical techniques in aesthetic surgery. The official publication of The Aesthetic Society, ASJ is also the official English-language journal of many major international societies of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery representing South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also the official journal of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信