Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T05:02:28.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Steroids in rhinoplasty: a survey of current UK otolaryngologists' practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2005

E Ofo ,
A Singh  and
J Marais
E Ofo
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiological Medicine, Northwick Park & St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK
A Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Head & Neck Surgery, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK
J Marais
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery and Audiological Medicine, Northwick Park & St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of steroids during rhinoplasty to reduce post-operative periorbital oedema and ecchymosis has been advocated. A number of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of steroids in rhinoplasty. The aim of this study was to determine current UK practice in the use of steroids during rhinoplasty performed by otolaryngologists.

A postal survey of consultant otolaryngologists in the UK was conducted. We received 203 responses, with 115 consultants performing 12 or more rhinoplasties per year. Only 28 consultants (24 per cent) used steroids routinely in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and of these 11 used a protocol, although this was unpublished. Dexamethasone was the most common steroid used (82 per cent), being administered as a single intravenous dose of 8 mg in the majority of cases (54 per cent). There was no correlation between the use of steroids and the number of rhinoplasties performed by individual consultants.

Despite the evidence supporting the use of steroids to reduce post-operative sequelae following rhinoplasty, only a minority of consultants in the UK appear to use them as part of their practice.

Keywords

SteroidsDexamethasoneRhinoplastyQuestionnaire
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 120 , Issue 2 , February 2006 , pp. 108 - 112
Copyright
© 2005 JLO (1984) Limited

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)