Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Life in Patients After Rhinoplasty Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): A Systematic Review

Rhinoplasty is a highly prevalent cosmetic and functional procedure. As a non-life-threatening surgery, its success is now fundamentally measured by patient satisfaction and improvements in quality of life, making patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) essential for evaluation. To comprehensively synthesize the evidence on changes in quality of life among adult patients after rhinoplasty, integrating both functional and psychosocial domains measured by validated PROMs. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and involved a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Taylor & Francis. Eligible studies included cohort, case-control, and randomized controlled trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Twenty-eight studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Across all study designs and surgical indications, rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty were consistently associated with significant postoperative improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Symptom-based instruments (NOSE, SNOT-22, SCHNOS obstruction) showed marked reductions, indicating improved nasal function, whereas PROMs assessing aesthetic, satisfaction, and psychosocial well-being (ROE, FACE-Q, SCHNOS cosmetic, WHOQOL-BREF, WHO-5) demonstrated substantial postoperative gains across functional, aesthetic, revision, and combined procedures. No single surgical technique showed clear superiority, and minimal clinically important difference reporting was limited. Rhinoplasty produces consistent, clinically meaningful improvements in functional and psychosocial quality of life domains. Despite heterogeneity in study design and PROM selection, the direction of effect was uniform. Greater standardization of PROM use and minimal clinically important difference reporting is needed to improve clinical interpretability and patient-centered outcome assessment.