Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2011 Sep;4(3):131-136.

The Internet as a Source of Information for Patients Prior to Rhinoplasty

• Szychta P
• Zielinski
• Rykala J
• Kruk-Jeromin J

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To determine the prevalence of Internet use by patients considering rhinoplasty and to identify the impact of such information on their decisions.
METHODS
Prospective analysis of the impact of information received via the Internet by patients considering rhinoplasty on their decision-making prior to surgery. Eighty six patients, scheduled for post-traumatic or aesthetic rhinoplasty, received a questionnaire, consisting of 19 questions, which sought to evaluate their perception of the importance of the Internet information to them and also collected relevant demographic and sociological data.
RESULTS
Respondents searched online for descriptions of medical procedures, information about how to contact other patients, pre- and post-operative pictures and making contact with a doctor. Patients considering aesthetic rhinoplasty received medical information from a third party or via the Internet. Individuals requiring post-traumatic surgical treatment were usually referred by family doctor.
CONCLUSION
Patients planning nasal aesthetic surgery form their opinions after consulting friends and searching the Internet, which can act as an important medical assistance.

Keyword

Internet; Information resources; Rhinoplasty

MeSH Terms

Friends
Humans
Internet
Medical Assistance
Prevalence
Prospective Studies
Rhinoplasty
Surveys and Questionnaires

Reference

1. Losken A, Burke R, Elliott LF 2nd, Carlson GW. Infonomics and breast reconstruction: are patients using the internet? Ann Plast Surg. 2005; 3. 54(3):247–250. PMID: 15725824.

2. Siliquini R, Ceruti M, Lovato E, Bert F, Bruno S, De Vito E, et al. Surfing the internet for health information: an italian survey on use and population choices. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011; 4. 07. 11:21. PMID: 21470435.

3. Jagadeesan J, Shariff Z. What's on the Web for plastic surgery? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 5. 121(5):363e–364e.

4. Dobratz EJ, Hilger PA. Osteotomies. Clin Plast Surg. 2010; 4. 37(2):301–311. PMID: 20206747.

5. van Heijningen RI, Mannaerts GH, Blondeel PN, Spauwen PH. PLink, plastic surgery and the Internet. Br J Plast Surg. 1998; 3. 51(2):86–89. PMID: 9659108.

6. Sullivan D. Nielsen NetRating search engine ratings [Internet]. 2004. cited 2011 Apr 19. Available from: http://www.searchenginewatch.com/reports/netratings.html.

7. Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL, Matthews MS. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001; 1. 107(1):171–176. PMID: 11176620.

8. Fox S, Lee R. The online health revolution: how the web helps Americans take better care of themselves [Internet]. 2000. cited 2011 Apr 19. Washington, DC: The Pew Internet & American Life Project;Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2000/The-Online-Health-Care-Revolution.aspx.

9. Carraway JH. Internet medical marketing: "anything goes"? Aesthet Surg J. 2006; Mar-Apr. 26(2):188–189. PMID: 19338898.

10. Aicher RH. Internet liability. Aesthet Surg J. 2000; 9. 20(5):433.

11. Becker DG. Website for rhinoplasty and facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg. 2006; 2. 22(1):70–74. PMID: 16732507.