Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gordon KA, Tosti A (2011) Alopecia: evaluation and treatment. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 4:101–106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JS (2003) Hair transplantation for men with advanced degrees of hair loss. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(1):414–421 (discussion 422–424)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):62–67

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rhee JS, McMullin BT (2008) Measuring outcomes in facial plastic surgery: a decade of progress. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 16(4):387–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):303–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):21–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1819–1827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):285–301

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andrich D (2004) Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 42(1 Suppl):I7–I16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadick NS (2008) The impact of cosmetic interventions on quality of life. Dermatol Online J 14(8):2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1417

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Andrich D (2011) Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(5):571–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):375–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):249–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Macgregor FC (1981) Patient dissatisfaction with results of technically satisfactory surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 5(1):27–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wright MR (1980) Management of patient dissatisfaction with results of cosmetic procedures. Arch Otolaryngol 106(8):466–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1596–1605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rassman WR, Bernstein RM, McClellan R et al (2002) Follicular unit extraction: minimally invasive surgery for hair transplantation. Dermatol Surg 28(8):720–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Uebel CO (1991) Micrografts and minigrafts: a new approach for baldness surgery. Ann Plast Surg 27(5):476–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):179–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):559–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):401–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

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

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yang Liu and Fang Liu contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors.

  2. Yong Miao and Zhi-qi Hu contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-corresponding authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Nan Fang Hospital of Southern Medical University, 1838 North Guangzhou AV, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, China

    Yang Liu, Fang Liu, Qian Qu, Zhe-xiang Fan, Yong Miao & Zhi-qi Hu

Authors
  1. Yang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qian Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhe-xiang Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yong Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhi-qi Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yong Miao or Zhi-qi Hu.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Liu, F., Qu, Q. et al. Evaluating the Satisfaction of Patients Undergoing Hair Transplantation Surgery Using the FACE-Q Scales. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 376–382 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1292-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1292-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation