Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 376–382 | Cite as

Evaluating the Satisfaction of Patients Undergoing Hair Transplantation Surgery Using the FACE-Q Scales

  • Yang Liu
  • Fang Liu
  • Qian Qu
  • Zhe-xiang Fan
  • Yong MiaoEmail author
  • Zhi-qi HuEmail author
Original Article Facial Surgery



It is necessary to evaluate a successful cosmetic procedure from the patients’ perspective. FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome scale for patients undergoing cosmetic procedures. However, currently there are no FACE-Q scales used in the field of hair transplant surgery. This article aims to apply FACE-Q scales to evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing hair transplantation surgery.


FACE-Q scales were modified to contain both preoperative and 6-month postoperative self-assessment, including baseline preoperative information of patients (such as age, family history of alopecia, Hamilton’ alopecia grade),preoperative self-assessment (satisfaction with appearance, the preoperative visual age, expected visual age) and postoperative self-assessment (satisfaction with appearance, postoperative visual age, satisfaction with decision, psychological well-being and social function). Besides, early life impact and recovery early symptoms were also re-evaluated.


The mean difference between the 6-month satisfaction with appearance and baseline scores showed a significant increase of 29.62 (baseline, 46.97; 6-month, 76.59; P < 0.001) and patients perceived they appeared 5.81 years younger after surgery (P < 0.001). Postoperative satisfaction with appearance has no significant relevance with gender (P = 0.460), age (P = 0.529), marriage (P = 0.811) or family history of alopecia (P = 0.641). However, income (P = 0.003), educational level (P = 0.003), the purpose of hair transplantation (P = 0.018) and early life impact (P = 0.002) were shown to have a significant impact on satisfaction with appearance.


The FACE-Q scales are a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome tool for patients undergoing hair transplantation and can be widely used to evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing such surgery.

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


Hair loss Hair transplantation FACE-Q scales Patient satisfaction Patient-reported outcome 



This study was funded by the followings: Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 81701929, 81772104).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All experiments are endorsed by the Ethics Committee of Southern Medical University and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent

No informed consent was required because data were going to be analyzed anonymously.


  1. 1.
    Gordon KA, Tosti A (2011) Alopecia: evaluation and treatment. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 4:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein JS (2003) Hair transplantation for men with advanced degrees of hair loss. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(1):414–421 (discussion 422–424) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hibler BP, Schwitzer J, Rossi AM (2016) Assessing improvement of facial appearance and quality of life after minimally-invasive cosmetic dermatology procedures using the FACE-Q scales. J Drugs Dermatol 15(1):62–67Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rhee JS, McMullin BT (2008) Measuring outcomes in facial plastic surgery: a decade of progress. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16(4):387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL 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):1819–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R, Wright BD (1998) Rasch measurement for reducing the items of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Outcome Meas 2(4):285–301Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andrich D (2004) Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 42(1 Suppl):I7–I16Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sadick NS (2008) The impact of cosmetic interventions on quality of life. Dermatol Online J 14(8):2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R (2002) Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 324(7351):1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andrich D (2011) Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(5):571–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL (2004) Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 57(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM (2003) Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(1):469–480 discussion 481-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Schwitzer JA, Scott AM, Pusic AL (2015) FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(2):375–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macgregor FC (1981) Patient dissatisfaction with results of technically satisfactory surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 5(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright MR (1980) Management of patient dissatisfaction with results of cosmetic procedures. Arch Otolaryngol 106(8):466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen GW, Ingels KJ (2015) Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(6):1596–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rassman WR, Bernstein RM, McClellan R et al (2002) Follicular unit extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation. Dermatol Surg 28(8):720–728Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uebel CO (1991) Micrografts and minigrafts: a new approach for baldness surgery. Ann Plast Surg 27(5):476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M et al (2008) The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 17(2):179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12(5):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenhalgh J, Meadows K (1999) The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 5(4):401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic and Aesthetic SurgeryNan Fang Hospital of Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations