Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Facial Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 22 May 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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 www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 22 May 2019

    The Electronic Supplementary Material originally published with this article has been removed due to lack of appropriate permissions from the copyright holder.

References

  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):1361–1367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):303–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2010

  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):193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1099–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):249–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):375–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):21–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):140–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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–652e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):628–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. WHO (World Health Organization). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. Accessed 1 June 2015

  14. Lexer R. Zur Gestichtsplastik (1910) Arch Klin Chir 92:749

    Google Scholar 

  15. Skoog T (1974) Plastic surgery: new methods and refinements. WB Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mitz V, Peyronie M (1976) The superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (SMAS) in the parotid and cheek area. Plast Reconstr Surg 58(1):80–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):839–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1819–1827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1238–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):202–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Swanson E (2011) Objective assessment of change in apparent age after facial rejuvenation surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64(9):1124–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):405–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):258–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sinno S, Schwitzer J, Anzai L, Thorne CH (2015) Face-lift satisfaction using the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(2):239–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1793–1802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):856–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pantaloni M, Sullivan P (2000) Relevance of the lesser occipital nerve in facial rejuvenation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2594–2599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leist F, Masson J, Erich JB (1977) A review of 324 rhytidectomies, emphasizing complications and patient dissatisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:525–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. ISAPS - ISAPS Global Statistics. The international study on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2016. https://www.isaps.org/news/isaps-global-statistics. Accessed July 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hand Surgery, Burns Unit, FX Michelet Center, University Hospital Bordeaux, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux, France

    M. Berger, R. Weigert & V. Casoli

  2. Department of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, FX Michelet, University Hospital Bordeaux, Place Amélie Raba-Léon, 33076, Bordeaux, France

    E. Pascal

  3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Nice, Pasteur 2, 30, Avenue de la Voie-Romaine, 06000, Nice, France

    K. Hufschmidt

Authors
  1. M. Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Weigert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Pascal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Hufschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. Casoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Berger.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1: The FACE-Q scales (DOCX 279 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berger, M., Weigert, R., Pascal, E. et al. Assessing Improvement of Patient Satisfaction Following Facelift Surgery Using the FACE-Q Scales: A Prospective and Multicenter Study. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 370–375 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1277-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1277-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation