Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jun;123(6):1819-1827.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a3f361.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation

Affiliations

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation

Tomasz R Kosowski et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Patient satisfaction and improved quality of life are the predominant considerations determining success in cosmetic surgery. However, few studies have examined patients' perceptions of their appearance following cosmetic facial surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. This study identified patient-reported outcome measures developed and validated for use in patients undergoing surgical and/or nonsurgical cosmetic procedures.

Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed. Patient-reported outcome measures designed to assess patient satisfaction and/or quality of life following surgical and/or nonsurgical cosmetic procedures were identified. Qualifying instruments were assessed for content and adherence to international guidelines for development and validation.

Results: From 442 articles, 47 patient-reported outcome measures assessing facial appearance after a cosmetic procedure were identified. Only nine questionnaires satisfied inclusion and exclusion criteria. These measures were subdivided into the following categories: rhinoplasty (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, Glasgow Benefit Inventory, Facial Appearance Sorting Test), skin rejuvenation (Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, Skin Rejuvenation Outcomes Evaluation, Facial Lines Outcomes Questionnaire), face lift (Facelift Outcomes Evaluation), blepharoplasty (Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation), and general appearance (Derriford Appearance Scale 59). None of these measures satisfied all guidelines. All measures were limited by either their development, their validation, or their content.

Conclusions: Valid, reliable, and responsive instruments designed to measure patient-reported outcomes following surgical and nonsurgical facial rejuvenation are lacking. A patient-reported outcome measure that represents perceptions of facial cosmetic surgery patients and satisfies accepted health measurement criteria is needed. It would facilitate comparison of techniques and quantification of positive effects, and aid surgeons seeking to quantify outcomes in their own practices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: Current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57:1–11.
    1. Pusic A, Liu JC, Chen CM, et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in head and neck cancer surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;136:525–535.
    1. Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL, Roberts AH, McGrouther DA, Black NA. The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Head/Neck (POS-head/neck): A new patient-based outcome measure. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:65–73.
    1. Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality of life measurement: A primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:98e–106e.
    1. Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Smith DJ Jr. Outcomes research: A primer for plastic surgeons. Ann Plast Surg. 1996;37:1–11.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources