4.5 Article

Comparison of Patterns of Psychopathology in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty Patients versus Functional Rhinoplasty Patients

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 152, 期 2, 页码 244-249

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0194599814560139

关键词

aesthetic rhinoplasty; functional rhinoplasty; psychopathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine whether candidates for aesthetic rhinoplasty show more severe symptoms of psychopathology in comparison with functional rhinoplasty patients. Study Design Case-control study. Aesthetic rhinoplasty candidates were taken as cases and functional rhinoplasty patients comprised the control group. Setting A surgical center for rhinoplasty. Subjects and Methods Forty-two patients seeking either aesthetic rhinoplasty (n = 21) or functional rhinoplasty (n = 21) were included in this study in winter 2012 using a convenience sampling method. All patients were asked to complete the Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) preoperatively. An independent t test was performed for each subscale of the instrument. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size. Pearson's correlation was also performed between the subscales. Results Independent t test verified that aesthetic rhinoplasty patients scored significantly higher in 8 subscales of the SCL-90-R in comparison with functional rhinoplasty patients as control group. Aesthetic rhinoplasty seekers showed more severe symptoms in obsessive-compulsive disorder (P < .01), depression (P < .01), interpersonal problems (P < .01), psychoticism (P < .05), paranoia (P < .05), hostility (P < .05), phobia (P < .01), and general psychopathology (P < .01). All subscales were correlated strongly in the current sample. Conclusion This study demonstrated that a sample of patients seeking aesthetic rhinoplasty had higher symptoms in various components of psychopathology compared with a control group. Therefore, preoperative psychological screening of aesthetic rhinoplasty candidates may be useful.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据