Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:36:29.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-rhinoplasty outcomes in an Indian population assessed using the FACE-Q appraisal scales: a prospective observational study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2020

K Soni ,
S K Patro ,
J Aneja ,
D Kaushal ,
A Goyal  and
N Shakrawal
K Soni
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
S K Patro
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
J Aneja
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
D Kaushal
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
A Goyal
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
N Shakrawal*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Neha Shakrawal, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Basni Phase II 342005, Rajasthan, India E-mail: drnehasnmc@gmail.com Fax: +91 291 274 0531
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The primary goal of rhinoplasty is patient satisfaction and improved quality of life. The present study was conducted to assess patient satisfaction with face and nose appearance, and quality of life after rhinoplasty.

Methods

Patients presenting for rhinoplasty completed the FACE-Q survey. This is a new instrument that measures patient-reported outcomes in those undergoing aesthetic procedures. The FACE-Q scales include satisfaction with facial appearance overall, satisfaction with the nose, psychological well-being, psychosocial distress and social function.

Results

Sixty-five patients completed the FACE-Q at pre-operative and at post-operative follow-up visits. Post-operative scores increased significantly in terms of: satisfaction with facial appearance (p < 0.0001, t = 15.639, degrees of freedom = 64); social function (p < 0.0001, t = 12.208, degrees of freedom = 64); psychosocial distress (p < 0.0001, t = 13.864, degrees of freedom = 64); psychological function (p < 0.0001, t = 12.681, degrees of freedom = 64); and satisfaction with nose (p < 0.0001, t = 16.421, degrees of freedom = 64). Most patients reported more than 79 per cent satisfaction with the post-operative outcome.

Conclusion

The FACE-Q is an adequate instrument for determining successful aesthetic surgery based on patient satisfaction.

Keywords

RhinoplastyFACE-QQuality Of Life
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 134 , Issue 3 , March 2020 , pp. 247 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr N Shakrawal takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Sorta-Bilajac, I, Muzur, A. The nose between ethics and aesthetics: Sushruta legacy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:707–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitaker, IS, Karoo, RO, Spyrou, G, Fenton, OM. The birth of plastic surgery: the story of nasal reconstruction from the Edwin Smith Papyrus to the twenty-first century. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:327–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, N, Warner, JP, Adamson, PA. Perceived age change after aesthetic facial surgical procedures quantifying outcomes of aging face surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012;14:258–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagien, S, Carruthers, JD. A comprehensive review of patient-reported satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A for aesthetic procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;122:1915–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, A, Carruthers, J.Patient-reported outcomes with botulinum neurotoxin type A. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2007;1(suppl 9):32–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano, SJ, Browne, JP, Lamping, DL. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 2004;57:1–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ching, S, Thoma, A, McCabe, RE, Antony, MM. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:469–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panchapakesan, V, Klassen, AF, Cano, SJ, Scott, AM, Pusic, AL. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q Aging Appraisal Scale and Patient-Perceived Age Visual Analog Scale. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:1099–109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alderman, A, Chung, KC. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery. Clin Plast Surg 2013;40:297–304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, J, Fagien, S, Matarasso, SL.Consensus recommendations on the use of botulinum toxin types A in facial aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114(suppl 6):1–22SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, MA, Pruzinsky, T, Cash, TF, Persing, JA. Measuring outcomes in plastic surgery: body image and quality of life in abdominoplasty patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:619–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alsarraf, R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000;24:192–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alsarraf, R, Larrabee, WF Jr, Anderson, S, Murakami, CS, Johnson, CM Jr.Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001;3:198–201CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klassen, AF, Cano, SJ, Scott, A, Snell, L, Pusic, AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 2010;26:303–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klassen, AF, Cano, SJ, Scott, AM, Pusic, AL. 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 2014;133:21–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klassen, AF, Cano, SJ, Schwitzer, JA, Scott, AM, Pusic, AL. FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact and satisfaction with outcomes and decision to have treatment: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135:375–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusic, AL, Klassen, AF, Scott, AM, Cano, SJ. 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 2013;40:249–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cano, SJ, Klassen, AF, Pusic, AL. From BREAST-Q to Q-Score: using Rasch measurement to better capture breast surgery outcomes. Joint International IMEKO TC1+ TC7+ TC13 Symposium, August 31–September 2nd 2011, Jena, Germany. In: https://d-nb.info/1022638637/34 [27 February 2020]Google Scholar
Mikalsen, SK, Folstad, I, Yoccoz, NG, Laeng, B. The spectacular human nose: an amplifier of individual quality? PeerJ 2014;2:e357CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimm, AJ, Modabber, M, Fernandes, V, Karimi, K, Adamson, PA. Objective assessment of perceived age reversal and improvement in attractiveness after aging face surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013;15:405–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusic, AL, Klassen, AF, Scott, AM, Klok, JA, Cordeiro, PG, Cano, SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:345–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusic, AL, Lemaine, V, Klassen, AF, Scott, AM, Cano, SJ. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:1361–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tardy, ME Jr.Rhinoplasty: The Art and the Science. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997;1Google Scholar
Millard, DR. A Rhinoplasty Tetralogy: Corrective, Secondary, Congenital, Reconstructive. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1996Google Scholar
Sheen, JH. Rhinoplasty: personal evolution and milestones. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:1820–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meningaud, JP, Lantieri, L, Bertrand, JC. Rhinoplasty: an outcome research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:251–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cingi, C, Songu, M, Bal, C. Outcomes research in rhinoplasty: body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allerg 2011;25:263–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balikci, HH, Gurdal, MM. Satisfaction outcomes in open functional septorhinoplasty: prospective analysis. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:377–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arima, LM, Velasco, LC, Tiago, RS. Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011;77:510–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Zijl, FVWJ, Mokkink, LB, Haagsma, JA, Datema, FR. Evaluation of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty: a systematic review. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2019;21:152–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed