Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty

Jake Alford, S. McCleary, J. Roostaeian
{"title":"Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty","authors":"Jake Alford, S. McCleary, J. Roostaeian","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae007.095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Goals/Purpose The inherent subjectivity in evaluating aesthetic outcomes presents a unique challenge in assessing rhinoplasty. Crowdsourcing has provided a new metric for objective analysis. The authors designed a study to compare the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty using a reliable and valid crowdsourcing platform. 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/Technique This retrospective observational study was approved by the IRB at UCLA. A total of 64 patients who had previously undergone rhinoplasty performed by the senior author were included. All surgeries were performed at the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center. Patients with prior nasal surgery or trauma were excluded. All subjects were photographed using standard rhinoplasty views during the pre-and postoperative visits. Frontal and right profile photographs were then cropped in a standardized fashion (Photos, Version 8.0, Apple Inc.) and used for evaluation. All evaluations and ratings were collected using the HIPPA compliant and encrypted software via a secure online platform (LoveMyDelta, Inc., Philadelphia, PA). All crowd workers were recruited and vetted through this platform, with internal fidelity checks performed. Each crowd worker was shown a profile and frontal view of a patient and asked to score the overall appearance of the nose, the nasal dorsum profile, the symmetry of the dorsal aesthetic lines, and the dorsal contour using a visual analog scale. Scoring was performed using a provided validated visual assessment guide. They were asked whether they believed the subject had undergone rhinoplasty and asked to provide a level of confidence in their guess. Crowdworkers’ responses were aggregated to allow for high-powered intra-rater analysis. Intra-rater reliability and confidence intervals were calculated. Aggregate data from all raters were used to generate an absolute value of aesthetic state for each cohort. A \"delta\" was then obtained for each value by comparing the preoperative to the postoperative state to obtain a representative value of the improvement after undergoing surgery. Raters were asked if the patient appeared to have had surgery, and each correct and incorrect response was proportionally weighted based on the raters' confidence in their answer. The delta (difference in preoperative to postoperative aesthetic state) for each parameter for the dorsal and non-dorsal preservation cohorts was calculated using non-paired T-tests to determine significance. Results/Complications A total of 64 patients were included for evaluation. The structural rhinoplasty cohort consisted of 34 patients. The dorsal preservation cohort included 30 patients. Both dorsal preservation and non-dorsal preservation rhinoplasty cohorts were associated with improved overall crowdsourced aesthetic outcomes and improved outcomes across all subparameters. Overall, delta (d) improved in both dorsal preservation (0.300, 95% CI +/- 0.047) and structural (0.377, 95% CI +/- 0.055) cohorts. When raters were asked to predict whether a patient had surgery, the correlation coefficient between the confidence in the prediction and that prediction being correct was 0.74 (95% CI +/- 0.47 in the structural group, suggesting that a crowd worker was likely to be correct in identifying whether a patient had structural rhinoplasty. However, the correlation coefficient was -0.0554 (95% CI +/- 0.058) in the dorsal preservation group. This suggests the raters were unable to consistently identify which patients had dorsal preservation rhinoplasty with any confidence. Conclusion In the ongoing challenge to achieve better aesthetic outcomes in plastic surgery, crowdsourcing is a valuable tool for helping to measure these outcomes. We compared the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty using a reliable and valid crowdsourcing platform. We found that significant improvements in overall aesthetic outcomes were achieved with both techniques, while a more natural “unoperated” outcome was achieved when performing a dorsal preservation technique. With this type of study and assessment tool, we helped to demonstrate the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating any plastic surgery aesthetic outcome.","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"22 29","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae007.095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Goals/Purpose The inherent subjectivity in evaluating aesthetic outcomes presents a unique challenge in assessing rhinoplasty. Crowdsourcing has provided a new metric for objective analysis. The authors designed a study to compare the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty using a reliable and valid crowdsourcing platform. 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/Technique This retrospective observational study was approved by the IRB at UCLA. A total of 64 patients who had previously undergone rhinoplasty performed by the senior author were included. All surgeries were performed at the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center. Patients with prior nasal surgery or trauma were excluded. All subjects were photographed using standard rhinoplasty views during the pre-and postoperative visits. Frontal and right profile photographs were then cropped in a standardized fashion (Photos, Version 8.0, Apple Inc.) and used for evaluation. All evaluations and ratings were collected using the HIPPA compliant and encrypted software via a secure online platform (LoveMyDelta, Inc., Philadelphia, PA). All crowd workers were recruited and vetted through this platform, with internal fidelity checks performed. Each crowd worker was shown a profile and frontal view of a patient and asked to score the overall appearance of the nose, the nasal dorsum profile, the symmetry of the dorsal aesthetic lines, and the dorsal contour using a visual analog scale. Scoring was performed using a provided validated visual assessment guide. They were asked whether they believed the subject had undergone rhinoplasty and asked to provide a level of confidence in their guess. Crowdworkers’ responses were aggregated to allow for high-powered intra-rater analysis. Intra-rater reliability and confidence intervals were calculated. Aggregate data from all raters were used to generate an absolute value of aesthetic state for each cohort. A "delta" was then obtained for each value by comparing the preoperative to the postoperative state to obtain a representative value of the improvement after undergoing surgery. Raters were asked if the patient appeared to have had surgery, and each correct and incorrect response was proportionally weighted based on the raters' confidence in their answer. The delta (difference in preoperative to postoperative aesthetic state) for each parameter for the dorsal and non-dorsal preservation cohorts was calculated using non-paired T-tests to determine significance. Results/Complications A total of 64 patients were included for evaluation. The structural rhinoplasty cohort consisted of 34 patients. The dorsal preservation cohort included 30 patients. Both dorsal preservation and non-dorsal preservation rhinoplasty cohorts were associated with improved overall crowdsourced aesthetic outcomes and improved outcomes across all subparameters. Overall, delta (d) improved in both dorsal preservation (0.300, 95% CI +/- 0.047) and structural (0.377, 95% CI +/- 0.055) cohorts. When raters were asked to predict whether a patient had surgery, the correlation coefficient between the confidence in the prediction and that prediction being correct was 0.74 (95% CI +/- 0.47 in the structural group, suggesting that a crowd worker was likely to be correct in identifying whether a patient had structural rhinoplasty. However, the correlation coefficient was -0.0554 (95% CI +/- 0.058) in the dorsal preservation group. This suggests the raters were unable to consistently identify which patients had dorsal preservation rhinoplasty with any confidence. Conclusion In the ongoing challenge to achieve better aesthetic outcomes in plastic surgery, crowdsourcing is a valuable tool for helping to measure these outcomes. We compared the aesthetic outcomes of dorsal preservation rhinoplasty versus structural rhinoplasty using a reliable and valid crowdsourcing platform. We found that significant improvements in overall aesthetic outcomes were achieved with both techniques, while a more natural “unoperated” outcome was achieved when performing a dorsal preservation technique. With this type of study and assessment tool, we helped to demonstrate the efficacy of using crowdsourcing as an efficient and reliable method for evaluating any plastic surgery aesthetic outcome.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对鼻背保留整形术美学效果的众包评估
摘要 目标/目的 在评估鼻整形术时,美学效果评估固有的主观性是一个独特的挑战。众包为客观分析提供了新的衡量标准。作者设计了一项研究,利用可靠有效的众包平台,比较鼻背保留整形术与结构性鼻整形术的美学效果。我们旨在客观量化保留鼻背技术的相对美学优势。此外,我们还希望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/技术 本项回顾性观察研究获得了加州大学洛杉矶分校研究委员会的批准。共纳入了 64 名曾接受过由资深作者实施的鼻整形手术的患者。所有手术均在加州大学洛杉矶分校罗纳德-里根医疗中心进行。之前接受过鼻部手术或外伤的患者被排除在外。所有受试者都在术前和术后就诊时使用标准鼻整形视角进行了拍照。正面和右侧轮廓照片按标准方式裁剪(照片,8.0 版,苹果公司)后用于评估。所有评价和评分均通过安全在线平台(宾夕法尼亚州费城,LoveMyDelta, Inc.)所有群众工作者都是通过该平台招募和审核的,并进行了内部真实性检查。向每位群众工作者展示患者的侧面和正面图,并要求他们使用视觉类比量表对鼻子的整体外观、鼻背轮廓、鼻背美学线条的对称性以及鼻背轮廓进行评分。评分使用提供的有效视觉评估指南进行。他们会被问及是否认为受试者接受过鼻整形手术,并要求他们对自己的猜测提供可信度。对群众的回答进行汇总,以便进行高强度的评分者内部分析。计算出评分者内部的可靠性和置信区间。所有评分者的汇总数据用于生成每个队列的审美状态绝对值。然后,通过比较术前和术后的状态,得出每个值的 "delta",以获得手术后改善效果的代表值。评分者会被问及患者是否似乎接受过手术,根据评分者对其答案的信心,按比例对每个正确和错误的回答进行加权。采用非配对 T 检验法计算保留背侧和非保留背侧队列中每个参数的 delta 值(术前与术后美学状态的差异),以确定其显著性。结果/并发症 共有 64 名患者接受了评估。结构性鼻整形组包括 34 名患者。保留鼻背队列包括 30 名患者。保留鼻背和不保留鼻背的鼻整形术组群都与改善的整体众包美学效果和改善的所有子参数效果相关。总体而言,保背组(0.300,95% CI +/- 0.047)和结构组(0.377,95% CI +/- 0.055)的 delta (d) 均有所改善。当要求评定者预测患者是否做过手术时,预测的可信度与预测的正确性之间的相关系数为 0.74(结构组的 95% CI +/- 0.47),这表明人群工作者在确定患者是否做过结构性鼻整形手术时很可能是正确的。然而,保背组的相关系数为-0.0554(95% CI +/-0.058)。这表明评分者无法始终如一地确定哪些患者进行了保留鼻背的鼻整形手术。结论 在整形外科不断挑战更好的美学效果的过程中,众包是帮助衡量这些效果的宝贵工具。我们利用可靠有效的众包平台,比较了保背隆鼻术和结构性隆鼻术的美学效果。我们发现,两种技术都能明显改善整体美学效果,而在采用保留鼻背技术时,能获得更自然的 "未手术 "效果。通过这种类型的研究和评估工具,我们证明了众包作为一种高效可靠的方法在评估任何整形手术美学效果方面的有效性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Commentary on: The Role of Nasal Fat Preservation in Upper Lid Surgery and Assessment With the FACE-Q Questionnaire: Innovations in Upper Blepharoplasty. Wound Coverage, Adjuvant Treatments, and Surgical Outcomes for Major Keloid Scars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Exploring Available Plastic Surgery Reward Programs and Proposing a Modeled Approach. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty. Commentary on: The Gargano Yin Yang Breast Reduction Technique: How to Obtain Better Breast Shape, Volume Distribution, and Size With Long-Lasting Results.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1