Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 370–375 | Cite as

Assessing Improvement of Patient Satisfaction Following Facelift Surgery Using the FACE-Q Scales: A Prospective and Multicenter Study

  • M. BergerEmail author
  • R. Weigert
  • E. Pascal
  • K. Hufschmidt
  • V. Casoli
Original Article Facial Surgery



Assessment of patient satisfaction following an aesthetic surgery has shown an increasing trend over the past years. To date, there is no prospective and comprehensive study evaluating this aspect after surgical facial and neck rejuvenation. The aim of the current work was to address patient satisfaction after face and neck lift surgery using a validated questionnaire.

Patients and Methods

We present a prospective and multicenter study (five regional centers) involving all patients undergoing face and neck lift surgery between April 2015 and April 2017 in several French centers for aesthetic surgery. All subjects assessed the FACE-Q scales before the procedure, and furtherly at 3-month, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups.


Thirty-six patients were included with a median age of 58.5 years old [IQR 54.0–66.0]. The FACE-Q outcomes were significantly higher at 3-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Seventy-five percent of the patients underwent an additional surgical procedure associated with face and neck lift. Particularly, a combined blepharoplasty led to a significant increase in the score of global facial appearance. The patients considered themselves a mean of 6 years younger in the third month after surgery. These results remained constant at six and twelve postoperative months.


A statistically significant improvement of the FACE-Q scores could be highlighted on every scale, with permanent results at 6 and 12 months postsurgery. We hereby present the first study with evidence that appearance and quality of life outcomes can be reliably assessed after rhytidectomy.

Level of Evidence IV

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


Rhytidoplasty Face and neck lift Patient satisfaction FACE-Q Facial rejuvenation 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare to have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

266_2018_1277_MOESM1_ESM.docx (280 kb)
Supplementary material 1: The FACE-Q scales (DOCX 279 kb)


  1. 1.
    Pusic AL, Lemaine V, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ (2011) Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1361–1367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL (2010) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 26(4):303–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Accessed June 1, 2010
  4. 4.
    Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E et al (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panchapakesan V, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q aging appraisal scale and patient-perceived age visual analog scale. Aesthet Surg J. 33(8):1099–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cano SJ (2013) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients. Clin Plast Surg 40(2):249–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2015) FACE-Q scales for healthrelated quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(2):375–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2014) Measuring outcomes that matter to face-lift patients: development and validation of FACE-Q appearance appraisal scales and adverse effects checklist for the lower face and neck. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(1):21–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwitzer JA, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Baker SB, East C, Pusic AL (2015) Measuring satisfaction with appearance: validation of the FACE-Q scales for the nose, forehead, cheekbones, and chin. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(4 Suppl):140–141Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL (2016) FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scores from close to 1000 facial aesthetic patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(3):651e–652ePubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pusic A, Klassen A, Panchapakesan V, Cano S (2014) Response to “The FACE-Q: the importance of full disclosure and sound methodology in outcomes studies”. Aesthet Surg J 34(4):628–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Albornoz CR, Pusic AL, Reavey P, Scott AM, Klassen AF, Cano SJ et al (2013) Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in head and neck reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 40(2):341–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    WHO (World Health Organization). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Accessed 1 June 2015
  14. 14.
    Lexer R. Zur Gestichtsplastik (1910) Arch Klin Chir 92:749Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skoog T (1974) Plastic surgery: new methods and refinements. WB Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitz V, Peyronie M (1976) The superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (SMAS) in the parotid and cheek area. Plast Reconstr Surg 58(1):80–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kappos EA, Temp M, Schaefer DJ, Haug M, Kalbermatten DF, Toth BA (2017) Validating facial aesthetic surgery results with the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(4):839–845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, Scott AM, Wilkins EG, Cano SJ et al (2009) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(6):1819–1827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacono A, Chastant RP, Dibelius G (2016) Association of patient self-esteem with perceived outcome after face-lift surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18(1):42–46Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yin Z, Wang D, Ma Y, Hao S, Ren H, Zhang T et al (2016) Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and appearance assessment of young female patients undergoing facial cosmetic surgery: a comparative study of the chinese population. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18(1):20–26Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Soest T, Kvalem IL, Roald HE, Skolleborg KC (2009) The effects of cosmetic surgery on body image, self-esteem, and psychological problems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62(10):1238–1244Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reilly MJ, Tomsic JA, Fernandez SJ, Davison SP (2015) Effect of facial rejuvenation surgery on perceived attractiveness, femininity, and personality. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 17(3):202–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    von Soest T, Kvalem IL, Skolleborg KC, Roald HE (2011) Psychosocial changes after cosmetic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(3):765–772Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Swanson E (2011) Objective assessment of change in apparent age after facial rejuvenation surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64(9):1124–1131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zimm AJ, Modabber M, Fernandes V, Karimi K, Adamson PA (2013) Objective assessment of perceived age reversal and improvement in attractiveness after aging face surgery. JAMA. Facial Plast Surg 15(6):405–410Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chauhan N, Warner JP, Adamson PA (2012) Perceived age change after aesthetic facial surgical procedures quantifying outcomes of aging face surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 14(4):258–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sinno S, Schwitzer J, Anzai L, Thorne CH (2015) Face-lift satisfaction using the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):239–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knoll BI, Attkiss KJ, Persing JA (2008) The influence of forehead, brow, and periorbital aesthetics on perceived expression in the youthful face. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(5):1793–1802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Forte AJ, Andrew TW, Colasante C, Persing JA (2015) Perception of age, attractiveness, and tiredness after isolated and combined facial subunit aging. Aesthetic Plast Surg 39(6):856–869PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pantaloni M, Sullivan P (2000) Relevance of the lesser occipital nerve in facial rejuvenation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2594–2599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leist F, Masson J, Erich JB (1977) A review of 324 rhytidectomies, emphasizing complications and patient dissatisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:525–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISAPS - ISAPS Global Statistics. The international study on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2016. Accessed July 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hand Surgery, Burns Unit, FX Michelet CenterUniversity Hospital BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Department of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, FX MicheletUniversity Hospital BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  3. 3.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity Hospital NiceNiceFrance

Personalised recommendations