Talk:Rhinoplasty

surgeryimages site

I have a site containing images from a rhinoplasty procedure ,but since It's my site someone else must approve the link first before adding it to the external links

http://surgery-images.com/plastic/rhinoplasty.html Nfostiras 08:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)nfostiras

Clean Up

This page needs better references. Recurring dreams 01:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For starters, can someone please provide the technical name of the type of surgeon that performs rhinoplasties? M. Frederick 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He or she is known as a plastic surgeon. Usually, a board-certified plastic surgeon is required. And then, rhinoplasty, being one of the most difficult plastic surgeries, also has a procedure known as Revision Rhinoplasty. That surgeon specializes in repairing botched cases, which are doubly hard and complicated because they were not done correctly the first time.Charles.Downey 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC) there are several specialists who operate on the nose. otolaryngologists(ent surgeons), plastic surgeons maxilofacial surgeons and recently dermatologists. accurate statistics are difficult to come by as the number of cosmetic rhinoplasties are not monitored. however the following may help-in ontario canada, 573 reconstructive rhinoplasties were done last year. 80% were by otolaryngologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakleysmith (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding to this point, an otolaryngologist may elect to pursue a fellowship in facial plastic surgery if they wish to perform rhinoplasties in practice. Prophylax (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Political correctness

I am not American, and am quite convinced that rhinoplasties are performed on non-American citizens. Why are blacks and asians referred to as "African-Americans" and "Asian-Americans"? Besides that, do non-whites in your country really want to be called by those cumbersome names...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.99.7 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, political correctness is forcing us to behave obtusely. I have no qualms with using "Black" or "Asian" (East Asian, if the orient is to be implied) in this context (I am black myself, Canadian, so I also find the term "Afro-American" even more restrictive then the racial restrictions it sought to destroy when its use was popularized). Then again, to be fair, the statement does not imply that only African/Asian-Americans are the ethnic recipients of this surgery, only that, of those groups, many choose to do it, and it would not be terribly far off to assume that of any ethnic Black/Asian sub-population, America does have the most members. 74.12.75.157 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "patients of African descent". Charles 03:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cost, Expense, Risks, Side Effects?

There is no mention of any of these in the article. I'd think it informative to include a section on the potential risks and side effects of rhinoplasty (i.e. nose collapse, infections, etc). Naturually, the cost can vary from region and country, but I think a general/average range of expense for this surgery would be nice (a break down by region even better).74.12.75.157 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i will add side effects/complicationsOakleysmith (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The current risks section mentions a few of the deformity complications from a rhinoplasty, but there are several others that may be included (eg, Rocker deformity, inverted V, etc.) Should this section be expanded to include these as well as images of each? Prophylax (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I added a few of these to the article, but we should consider uploading images of each as well. Prophylax (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also elaborated on the section to include difficulty breathing from nasal obstruction. Prophylax (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Non surgical nose job

Under the rhinoplasty section "non surgical nose job" is a term coined and trademarked by a Dr. Alexander rivkin he pretty much invented the procedure that dates back to 2003. The proof for the invention of the phrase and the actual word can be found under (TM-Source: Serial Number 77/097,402) I think a persons name should be mentioned in the article to atleast give partial credit to person who came up with the procedure. Give credit where credit is due. --Happyfeetprod (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(from my talk page) : The problem here is that Dr. Rivkin only trademarked the term, "Non-Surgical Nose Job™" and using this term in the Rhinoplasty article isn't appropriate, given the subject is non-surgical rhinoplasty in the generic sense. What you added, as well as the article you have previously created is simply blatantly promotional; in other words, an advert. Proof of trademarking a term doesn't establish notability nor does it make it encyclopedic - Alison ^❤ 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

i understand what you're saying, in terms of the difference between the terms non surgical rhinoplasty and non surgical nose job, and perhaps this is not quite what i wanted to emphasize. my point is that, before Rivkin came along, there was no such concept of non surgical rhinoplasty, or non surgical nose job. he is the first one, if you look at the articles and videos on the net, to offer this procedure, under any name. so the issue here is what is advertising Vs what is legitimate credit for the invention of a technique. in an article about relativity, you have to mention Einstein - you would agree that this is not advertising or promotion. it is simply a fact that Einstein developed the ideas of relativity. similarly, it is simply a fact that rivkin was the first to come up with the concept of changing the shape of someone's nose via injections. subsequently, several other doctors adopted the technique and tried to attach their names to it.

In fact, the 2 sources that you let stay on, 2 completely different articles that mentions the same doctor, has quotes regarding non surgical rhinoplasty that Dr. Rivkin had made 2 years prior. Anyway, I think that by putting in 2 articles with references to the same New York doctor is more of an obvious advert than it would be to acknowledge the guy who actually invented the procedure. also, how is a today show clip an obvious advert whereas a USA today article is a legitimate reference? Atleast a comprise should be made that and it would make sense to acknowledge Rivkin's development of the procedure, to say that multiple doctors are doing it now, and to include references like the today show clip. --Happyfeetprod (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd really like to see some reliable sources such as PUBMED or some peer-reviewed publications, really, that Dr. Rivkin is a pioneer in this field. The reason I ask is that I'm aware that people have been using dermal fillers for quite some time to achieve this effect. In fact, Europe, they've been successfully using Aquamid and Hyaluronic acid in this way. If, as you say, he's a noted pioneer, then he definitely should get a mention. The Today Show clip would be problematic due to copyright and our policy regarding external links. - Alison ^❤ 08:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, i see what you mean, i guess, but in the external link policy it specifically states that you tube video is an acceptable link. also, is there a preference for written sources over video on wikipedia? you're saying that a today show segment is promotional, whereas a transcribed abc news segment is an acceptable reference? --Happyfeetprod (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i would suggest this section be removed entirely. it could better be placed in an area on cosmetic fillers. it mentions the only living doctor. who probably isnt a surgeon. i get the feeling its advertising. Oakleysmith (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i was wrong. he is an otolaryngologist which is a surgical specialty.Oakleysmith (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Rhinoplasty

Regarding the text "Patients of African descent commonly seek narrowing of wide nostrils." This seems anecdotal at best. There certainly is a tortured history in the US between Caucasian and African American beauty. And perhaps a more nuanced approach to the text is in order. There was an interesting article from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in 2003 which described rhinoplasty surgery's role for African Americans as a method of "retain[ing] their unique ethnic characteristics while improving their overall look." Then again the author of a Salon article on the topic sniffed "American hucksterism" in the ASPS report, saying that it looked like "the ultimate in having it both ways, the plastic-surgery equivalent of a Ginsu knife."

I'm not sure if I'm even using the Talk section correctly. I know that I have issue with this text and I suppose I'm looking for feedback as I don't have a concise sentence to pop in the page and have done with it. JakeMul (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been removed, and now there is a sentence regarding the typical nose shape of various ethnicities. Prophylax (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jewish sweet 16 Nosejobs

I myself am Jewish and I know for a fact that alot of young girls in the Jewish community get nosejobs for their sweet sixteenths.. someone should put something about that in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.71 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting fact, but we'd need a reliable source of information to back it up before we could put it in the article. It's also not very encyclopaedic, and it hasn't got very much to do with nose jobs as such; perhaps it would be more appropriate on one of the Judaism-related articles? Any thoughts from my fellow editors? CarrotMan (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that without a reliable source, this probably should not be added to the article. If this were to be added, you might as well add facts about rhinoplasty from every country. Prophylax (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the "In The Operating Room" section?

Is this an advertisement for FacialSurgery.com or what? It should at least be remotely presentable. Sheesh ... It ruins the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The information on surgical techniques is really wanting. First of all, the incision on the outside of the nose was not popularized until recently and is not used in many cases. The approach in which all incisions are inside the nose is called an "endonasal" or "closed" approach. The incisions in the endonasal approach are numerous and can include: 1)a marginal incision, made just above the rim of the nostil, along the caudal margin of the lower lateral cartilage. It provides access to the caudal (lower) edge of the lower lateral cartilage only. 2)a transcartilagenous (cartilage-splitting) incision, which transects the lateral crus of the lower lateral cartilage. This incision is most often used to trim the cephalic margin of the lateral crus in situ in a non-delivery approach (cephalic trim is commonly used to correct bulbosity and excess width of the tip), but can be used to facilitate a delivery approach 3)an intercartilagenous incision is made along the cephalic margin of the lower lateral cartilage, at the point where it attaches to the upper lateral cartilage of the dorsum. This incision is used to gain access to the dorsum to allow correction of a hump. The cephalic margins of the lateral crura can also be trimmed through this incision if the mucosal skin is dissected away from the lateral crus until the point where it will be transected and excised. This incision is also commonly used to facilitate a delivery approach. 4)a transfixion incision is an incision that cuts the connection between the caudal edge of the septum and the medial crura. Hemitransfixion incisions begin at the anterior septal angle and extend to the collumelar junction. They can be used to gain access to the caudal septum so it can be straightened, trimmed, or extended with a graft. Complete transfixion incisions begin at the anterior septal angle and extend all the way down to the medial crural footplates. This allows greater access to the caudal septum and to the nasal spine, but disrupts the attachment of the footplates to the caudal septum. As the footplates of the medial crura are often attached about two millimeters anterior to the nasal spine, this incision will cause the tip to deproject about 2mm and rotate downward slightly. This can be used as an advantage to decrease projection, but can also lead to underprojection and drooping of the tip if the medial crural footplates are not sutured to the caudal septum in their original position once the work on the caudal septum or nasal spine is complete.

A non-delivery approach involves modification of the lower lateral cartilages in situ (in their normal position). A delivery approach involves making a marginal incision and either a transcartilagenous or intercartilagenous incision, freeing the lower lateral cartilages from the overlying skin, and then "delivering" or pulling the lower lateral cartilages out of their normal position (ex situ) and into to nostril so they can be seen by the surgeon. This allows for more complex modifications to be made including suturing techniques such as the one already pictured on this page (a transdomal suture, by the way) or various forms of vertical dome division

Vertical dome division is used to treat more complex tip deformities. There are numerous variations of vertical dome division used today. The original technique, known as the Goldman maneuver was first described by Goldman in the 1950's. Goldman's original technique was used to increase the projection and upward rotation of the tip of the nose. Vertical dome division involves dividing the lower lateral cartilages vertically at any point along the lateral, intermediate, or medial crura. If the lateral crura are divided and part of them are excised (or the redundant cartilage is overlaid onto itself and sutured, as is now gaining popularity) they are shortened, causing the tip to rotate upward and deproject slightly. If the medial crura are divided and shortened, the tip will deproject dramatically and derotate somewhat. If the intermediate crura are divided and shortened, the nose deprojects with minimal effect on rotation. Goldman's technique can be used to increase both projection and upward rotation. It involves dividing the lateral crura a few mm lateral to the dome (their junction with the medial crura) and then suturing the medial edges of the lateral crura together to lengthen the medial crura. This borrowing of the lateral crura to extend the medial crura can create a dramatic increase in both projection and rotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanapr289 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's understood. But up until the "In the Operating Room" section, the article looks relatively organized and aesthetically pleasing. It would be really nice if the "In the Operating Room" section could follow suit. The content isn't *bad*, but the way it looks on the page is terrible. Many of the images could be taken out, and content could be combined to make actual paragraphs. Anyways, that's all. Paravis (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire article was terrible before I just changed it some moments ago. It still is not good or great, but at least now it can be called decent. The In the Operating Room section is now combined in the Surgical approach: Open vs. closed subsection of the larger Surgical procedures and types section, and I do not feel that it is an advertisement or ruins the whole article; it is very informative, detailing each step, and now blends in better. Flyer22 (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy persons

Noteworthy persons, who are known to have had such a job are among others:

• Paul Anka
• Janet Jackson
• La Toya Jackson
• Michael Jackson
• Queen Fabiola of Belgium

Possibly something for a section in this article.--VKing (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is very litigious. We cannot assert any of these to have had the surgery unless the people admit it themselves, no matter how obvious it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.9.163 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article

This article is so long I think it could be split into two or three - maybe one on surgical rhinoplasty and one on non-surgical rhinoplasty. -download ׀ talk 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, page is a monster right now. I might take the initiative and start by splitting off a starter page for non-surgical rhinoplasty, see where it goes from there. Inglenookish (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it needs splitting since some articles are just as big as this one, but WP:SIZE can be used as a measurement. I'm just glad that the article is much improved from the first time I improved it and commented on that in the What's up with the "In The Operating Room" section? area of the talk page above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Forked into Anatomy of the human nose

Hi. I recently copied the all content from Rhinoplasty#Anatomy of the human nose into a new article anatomy of the human nose. I have not made any changes to this article however.

It seemed to me that the subsection was large enough to become its own article. Plus things like embryologic development may not be relevant for most readers of who want to know about rhinoplasty (an the article is pretty long as it is). I would suggest reducing and simplifying the section and adding a {{Main|Anatomy of the human nose}} to it. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Potential illogical order

In the History section it says "from Sanskrit to Arabic" then "from Arabia to Persia to Egypt", it seems to me that the most probable dissemination of information would have been from India to Persia to Arabia to Egypt and so on to western Europe.

I admit that it could have travelled from India directly to Arabia by boat, but this I assume would be less probable. That said, if it were the case, "from Arabia to Persia to Egypt" would still be erroneous and should instead be "from Arabia to Persia and Egypt".

Considering Sushruta lived 300 years prior to the first Persian empire which included part of India and the extensive cultural and scientific exchanges between India and Persia, that this scientific knowledge would have travelled directly to Arabia before entering Persia, India's bordering empire, I think the former would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FxRez (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rhinoplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127161922/http://www.nyam.org/news/2493.html to http://www.nyam.org/news/2493.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302193000/http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol3n2%2Frhino.xml to http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijps%2Fvol3n2%2Frhino.xml

https://www.draydintekgoz.com/en

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129073529/http://www.robertkotlermd.com/revrhino.php to http://www.robertkotlermd.com/revrhino.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Micro rhinoplasty

The section I have added to the article in here is being keep removed from the article. There are multiple independend sources (which can be seen in the article) about the content. Some users say that we can't use sources like Celebs & Fashion Mag for medicine articles and I agree, but in this case, they are used for the surgeon and the "presentation" date of the technique, not for the technique itself. For that, I added his article that has been published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal. The article has been cited for 11 other articles (this one especially is a good one) so it is a pretty reliable source.--Nanahuatl (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is medical content, so sources must conform to WP:MEDRS. None of these sources do. Even setting that aside, this appears to be a brand new technique that has not seen wide adoption. Per WP:UNDUE it is unsuitable for this article. - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles from academic journals yes, they do! I showed you the sources and cites.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary studies do not satisfy sourcing requirements. A case series is not an adequate source. Number of citations is irrelevant. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @MrOllie: and @BiologicalMe:, I have found those sources:
• Berkhout, Maaike Cornelia; Jan Menger, Dirk (2019). "The Use of Osteotomies in Nasal Profileplasty". Facial Plastic Surgery. 35 (5): 458–466. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1695752.
• Gruber, Ronald P.; Garza, Rebecca M.; Cho., Gerald J. (2016). "Nasal bone osteotomies with nonpowered tools". Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 43 (1): 73–83. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2015.09.019.
• Mohmand, Muhammad Humayun; Ahmad, Muhammad (2016). "'The Humayun-Adson-Brown forceps': A new practical modification". Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 69 (9): e193–e194. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2016.06.015.

Do you think are they enough? I also have removed this section from the article per WP:MEDRS, but for some reason, it looks like there are people who want to add this section and remove the other section (that's not my speciality, I don't know why). I have no problem if both sections present in the article, all I look for is to contribute to Wikipedia :) Regards.--Nanahuatl (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Enough? It isn't a matter of quantity. The first two articles are a little specialized in that they are comparing a subset of techniques. They are suitable as sources for content, but don't establish that the content belongs. As a general guideline, if a general review article of rhinoplasty or a plastic surgery textbook does not discuss a technique, it is definitely too specialized for Wikipedia. Exact techniques and specific instruments are more detailed information than a general purpose encyclopedia article needs. General concepts (open vs. closed, filler, etc.) are more appropriate for the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@BiologicalMe:, I mean, to make a content encyclopedic enough to add :) As I mentioned, I am not the expert, I just look for some academic articles that mention about the technique. I believe we can mention about the tecnique (that it exists and it's notable about to mention), but not like a section or so many details about it.--Nanahuatl (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Existence alone does not justify a mention. Some specifics may always exceed due weight for a general article on the subject. The bottom-up approach of finding the minimum amount of sources to include something ignores its relative significance. That is why I suggested a more top-down approach. What does a current textbook (not procedure manual) on general surgery, plastic surgery, or otorhinolaryngology say? If the answer is nothing, then there probably is no reason to to give it more weight in this article. As an aside, there is no need to ping me when I have just been active. When I am on Wikipedia next, I will follow up on recent activity. A new development months from now would be different. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

BiologicalMe, I strongly agree about not mentioning the "relatively less important" things as if they are "more important" than they actually are. Now I can see that adding a section about this technique isn't the right thing to do. About pinging, sorry, it's a habit from my local-language Wikipedia :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ultrasonic rhinoplasty

User:Nanahuatl, it's not because you are not able to do promotion for your surgeon that you are allowed to delete encyclopedic content. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't promote any surgeon, I only seek to contribute to the article. Removing a content isn't promotion. Otherwise, I wouldn't nominate the article that I have created for deletion.--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So, why had you delete the 'ultrasonic rhinoplasty' section ? 185.175.33.158 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You can look the section above. The same reason.--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So, you don't have any reason except 'I am disappointed that wikipedia does not accept my surgeon advertising' ? --185.175.33.158 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As I told you, I don't promote anyone, if I were promotiong I wouldn't nominate the article I had created for deletion, would I? Is there any independent academic sources fot the information that you try to "promote"? If so, please add. If not, we can't allow the content, just like the orher content. @BiologicalMe:, @MrOllie:, @Billinghurst:?--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

All the academic sources are present, unlike the section you are trying to promote. These 2 sections have nothing to do. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please talk about the content, not the editor. The section in question is highly specialized and is not supported by review articles. As such, it probably should be deleted. Taking out one section simply to make a point would be inappropriate. If the action is correct, however, the motive is irrelevant, so assume good faith and discuss based on content and policy. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The section is not so specialized: ultimately, all rhinoplasties will probably be ultrasonic rhinoplasties. This is what is said in scientific congresses and in specialized literature. At best, you should create a dedicated article, at worst keep the section on this Rhinoplasty article. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I have no particular interest in the article, though I am concerned about the non-authoritative information being added, and the use of unreliable sources. This is meant to be an encyclopaedic article, so treat it as such, and take out all the gumph, take out the information that belongs in specialist books, or put it into a separate article that could cover specific components. Or if you wish to write a university level lecture, then pop over to English Wikiversity, or a book then try Wikibooks. Any person coming to read an encyclopaedic article would probably just click straight back out, so what is the value there? So dial it back! Think of your audience, not your individual brilliances. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I just want to say one thing: when you search Rhinoplasty on Google, you can see ultrasonic rhinoplasty in related searches. I think a dedicated article will be better, but I'm not qualified to write it. Cheers. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Ponyo:, looks like we can remove the section.--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Really Nanahuatl? It looks like you can't promote your turkish surgeon/client, so you want to delete encyclopedic content? There are 7 (seven) times more Google results for 'Ultrasonic Rhinoplasty' than for 'Micro rhinoplasty', and at least 10 times more encyclopedic/scholar results. Stop messing around please. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, are you going to take an action abot this or should we listen this user more? How can I even promote someone that I nominated for deletion?--Nanahuatl (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built on speculations like "all rhinoplasties will probably be ultrasonic rhinoplasties". Most of the sources are commercial websites and one is a case series report that falls short of MEDRS. I see no policy-based rationale for keeping the section and recommend deletion. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not my speculations, it's what you can read on 95% of the scientific literature of theses 5 last years. There is A LOT of non commercial websites who deal about it, you can add them as third party source if you want. More and more international surgery meetings take place around the ultrasonic rhinoplasty technique, and they bring together the best surgeons around the world. (I never heard something like that for 'micro rhinoplasty'?) You can't not talk about it on this article, it would be like doing an article on cellular networks and not talking about 5G --31.168.199.213 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the content...--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nanahuatl wikipedia is not your private blog. --2A04:CEC0:1169:5D42:55C6:B0F7:5943:C086 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on sub-section removal

Having warned an editor not to remove content without their being a clear' consensus here, they tell me that there is one. I'm not seeing it myself, at present. So, I need to ask interested editors: should the repeatedly deleted section on ultrasound rhinoplasty be permanently removed from this page? I have no medical knowledge myself, but have found what I thought seemed like good, independent sources such as this, and this from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons that suggest this section seemed appropriate. I, or other independent admins (like Ponyo and Billinghurst) would put more wait on users' views - be they registered or IP users - if they already have a clear history of making valid edits to much more than just this one article over the last few days. Please leave your views in support or opposition to permanent deletion, below, with your rationale. And in the meantime, no further section blanking please until a clear WP:CONSENSUS emerges over the next seven days or so. Many thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Whichever way we go, can we please stop using unreliable sources like "cnfmag.com" in an encyclopaedia. That sort of celeb porn should be last resort usage and maybe not at all; find a better source. It's addition is what brought me to the kerfuffle in the first place. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Moyes, for hunting down some sources. The textbook describes piezoelectric instruments as an improvement on instrumentation, not a novel technique (p138). There is room for a sentence or two, probably in Rhinoplasty#Open rhinoplasty versus closed rhinoplasty right after "does not cut the columella". The current section is written in a purely promotional fashion without reliable sources. If you look at the drawbacks, it starts with the surgeon needing to buy instruments, burying the lead. It then soft-sells longer surgical time as more options. It finally spends a whole five words ("a wider exposure is necessary") on what the ASPS article devotes several paragraphs. In my opinion, WP:TNT is warranted on the section as written. Given that "Open rhinoplasty versus closed rhinoplasty" is a level 3 heading (three equal signs), a variant open technique does not warrant a level 2. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello BiologicalMe, why not just delete the "promotional" references? --82.254.29.57 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Personnaly, I think that an autopatrolled user should decide. --82.254.29.57 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting promotional sources to leave unsourced promotional content is not an improvement. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Since the beginning of these discussions, I have learnt some things about medical content in Wikipedia that I didn't know before. The anonymous(?) user that claims me promoting someone, looks like actually the one who promotes someone. I share the same ideas of BiologicalMe. And also I want to add Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore page here, which we need to take a look.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea to ask to someone who has medical knowledge is the right idea. In 2020, the surgery is not free. So, you just can't say that each medical novelty is promotional content. It's nonsense. --Steven24081996 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Steven24081996: Thank you for that comment, but I note you created this account 5 minutes before making this, your only edit on Wikipedia. Hardly the input from an experienced editor I was hoping for. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: of course, it's just what I'm said before, we need "someone who has medical knowledge". I just created this account, because if i don't, talk say that I'm anonymous... --Steven24081996 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, @Steven24081996:, though it's not anonymity that bothers people so much, it's  WP:SPA accounts who suddenly arrive only to edit one article, or people editing from more than one IP addresses. I fully accept your point about medical knowledge - something I don't have. My purpose here is purely to avoid disruption and to encourage a consensus to emerge. To that end I have posted this request at WikiProject Medicine. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw User:Nick Moyes's note at WT:MED. The use of ultrasound (aka piezoelectric) surgical techniques merits a mention in this article. For example, PMID 30649568 can be cited to say that it has less post-operative swelling than traditional (chisel) technique. PMID 28412983 looks useful, if you can get a copy. However: I would not include the list of advantages or drawbacks, the name of a surgeon who invented a specialized tool (surgeons have been modifying instruments for centuries), the claim that this is a "recent" option, or other content like that. In fact, I think that the entire Rhinoplasty#Surgical rhinoplasty section needs to be re-written to sound like an encyclopedia article. Right now, it sounds like an advertisement. For example, there is a long list of the "features" of a closed rhinoplasty. That should be re-written to say that X is faster than Y, or that Y is more appropriate than X under these circumstances. It might help to think of your audience as a teenager writing a paper about body image problems for school, and who needs to have a basic understanding of rhinoplasties to avoid embarrassment. The main audience is not people who need to use this information to make real-world decisions (e.g., patients and surgeons). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Nick Moyes:, @WhatamIdoing:, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons source says that "In 2004, this changed with the introduction of ultrasonic, or piezoelectric, rhinoplasty by Dr. Massimo Robiony". The Wikipedia article says "Specific instruments for rhinoplasty have been developed by French plastic surgeon Dr. Olivier Gerbault" and gives three sources, two of them are written by Dr. Gerbault, one of them is a source of his company/clinic. Since no third-party sources are shown since February 2020, should we remove this part?--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Massimo Robiony has not created this technique. He was the first to think about it, but Olivier Gerbault created the method and the instruments. Massimo Robiony said it himself. --Stefanyavtbl (talk) 1u8:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• First, unless there is an existing consensus for having any particular content in the article, no consensus is needed to remove it. However, consensus is required to REINSTATE it. Second, Stefanyavtbl, it's nice you believe that, but what you believe couldn't be less relevant. Provide reliable secondary sources for your arguments. This is a medicine articleand only the best sources are acceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

But what is more accurate than the equipment company itself ? https://www.acteongroup.com/us/products/medical/ultrasonic-bone-surgery/surgical-m-tips/expert-rhinoplasty-kit#/rhinosplasty-essential-kit and https://marinamedical.com/fda-approves-ultrasonic-rhinoplasty/ --Stefanyavtbl (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

They are self-published, non-independent sources...--Nanahuatl (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nanahuatl, you should not be allowed to talk here: your account is used for a turkish marketing agency. Here, we have Acteon, the equipment company itself, and Marina Medical who sell the NECESSARY products needed to perform ultrasonic rhinoplasty. They said that theses instruments were developed by DR. Gerbault. There is no other surgical instrument used for ultrasonic rhinoplasty.--Stefanyavtbl (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

comment on content, not contributors. You're not going to strike an agreement with personal attacks. - MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, if anyone is interested, my global contributions can easily be checked :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This user Nanahuatl is an account that is used to make Wikipedia edits for cash. I have the proof of that, where and to whom can I send the proofs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.19.185 (talk • contribs)

Again, personal attacks will not help you build a consensus. As of yet you haven't convinced anyone (including me) that your edits are warranted. If you continue edit warring with multiple editors about this you can expect to be blocked and/or the page will be protected again. - MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, MrOllie (talk), tell me what is more relevant than the equipment company itself? --Stefanyavtbl (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The details of who manufactures instruments are not important at all to a general audience. We don't list companies that make scalpels on Scalpel. - MrOllie (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I know. But how can you say that Dr. Gerbault is not the inventor of this technique even though the manufactures instruments say it is him? --Stefanyavtbl (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Manufacturers are not unbiased sources, they will say whatever is best for their bottom line. - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you don't understand. A doctor invented a technique. Other doctors have talked about it before, during, and will talk about it in the future. He may have helped himself with the previous work of other surgeons. But, it was he who invented the technique. He developed the instruments for this technique, and instrument companies bear witness to that. The instruments themselves bear the surgeon's name, "Gerbault". Dozens of other surgeons around the world also testify to Dr. Gerbault and his invention. The theory of relativity was developed by Einstein, although it was based on the work of Pointcarré. --Stefanyavtbl (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand you, I just don't agree. We need independent sources, not a series of papers written by Gerbault and a company he works with - especially when the independent source we do have (the American Society of Plastic Surgeons) says Robiony introduced it. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First picture on the page

Would there be an value in using a different article image? The bloody nose strikes me as a tad graphic given many surgery articles either use diagrams, or less detailed pictures. 2601:240:C401:9450:5D80:9AC5:2E4F:DD42 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have another image in mind? Prophylax (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Cosmetic vs. Functional Rhinoplasty

This article should have a discussion about the difference between cosmetic rhinoplasty (ie, for aesthetic purposes) and functional rhinoplasty (ie, for breathing purposes). Prophylax (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Added a sentence distinguishing the two under "Types of Rhinoplasty." Prophylax (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nasal Analysis

Added a section on the 10-7-5 analysis with citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159929/ Prophylax (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)