Defining Our Terms: Are Postoperative Complications Adequately Defined in the Rhinoplasty Literature?

Background Rhinoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures, and yet its postoperative complication profile remains somewhat ill-defined and underreported. The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of complication reporting in the rhinoplasty literature and provide a framework for future complication classification. Methods Studies were identified from a previously published 2019 systematic review conducted at Duke University Medical Center. Each included study was again reviewed to determine the reported complications and definitions. Reported complications were analyzed to determine occurrence rate, definition presence/absence, definition location, subjectivity/objectivity, and presence of severity grading system. Results A total of 30 studies were included. Overall, 63% ( n = 19) of studies failed to provide a single definition for any reported complications. The remaining 11 studies (37%) provided at least one definition for their reported complications. Grading/severity scales were included by 8 studies. A specific complication was identified as a “primary outcome” in 15 cases. Definitions were included for 11 (73%) of these 15 complications. Complications denoted as “primary outcomes” were significantly more likely to have an included definition ( p <0.01). Conclusions Postoperative complications following rhinoplasty are inadequately defined in the available literature, with over sixty percent of studies failing to define a single-reported complication. When complication definitions are included, they are often subjective in nature and rarely include a grading or severity scale. In the absence of standardized rhinoplasty complication definitions, comparing complication rates across studies is exceedingly difficult, and the ability to conduct high-quality meta-analyses is limited. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .