Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

French

Background: The FACE-Q Aesthetic module measures patient-important outcomes following surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic procedures. Objective: The primary aim of this systematic review was to summarize the pre- to post-intervention mean differences of facial aesthetic interventions that evaluate outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scales. Methods: Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched on December 20, 2022 with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42023404238). Studies that examined any surgical or non-surgical facial aesthetic intervention in adult patients and used FACE-Q Aesthetics Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scales to measure participants before and after treatment were included for analysis. Results: Of 914 potential articles screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated surgical (n = 22, 62.9%) versus non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions (n = 13, 37.1%). Rhinoplasty [37.0 points, 95% CI 24.7-49.3, P < 0.01] demonstrated the largest weighted increase in Face Overall scores, whereas the largest increase in Psychological [67.1 points, 95% CI 62.9–71.3, P < 0.01] and Social [63.9 points, 95% CI 53.2–74.6, P < 0.01] scores was demonstrated by a single study evaluating surgical forehead lifts, respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis leverages FACE-Q Aesthetic module scoring to present the expected mean differences in Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores for various surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions. The findings from this review may be used to indirectly compare interventions and contribute to sample size calculations when planning future studies.

Keywords

Aesthetics FACE-Q systematic review meta-analysis

Introduction

The FACE-Q Aesthetic module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure that converts subjective patient experiences into interpretable, quantitative data. Since becoming available to the research community in 2010, the FACE-Q Aesthetic module has been used extensively to assess outcomes for both surgical and non-surgical aesthetic interventions, including facelifts, rhinoplasty, and minimally invasive procedures.^1–4 The FACE-Q Aesthetic module consists of 34 independently functioning scales and six checklists which evaluate the patient's perspective on satisfaction with facial appearance, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and adverse effects of treatment.^1,5 As the FACE-Q is not intervention specific, it can be used to measure and compare outcomes following a variety of facial aesthetic procedures.

While secondary analyses have attempted to summarize the effect of various facial cosmetic interventions using the FACE-Q, these studies have been limited to narrative and non-systematic reviews of the existing literature.^3,4 Ottenhof et al³ identified 70 primary studies of facial aesthetic interventions using any FACE-Q aesthetic module scale(s); however, the authors did not summarize the results of these studies within their analysis. Similarly, Hoffman and Fabi⁴ identified 31 minimally invasive facial aesthetic procedures using the FACE-Q; however, this narrative analysis was limited only to minimally invasive interventions.

As the FACE-Q was recently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved as a medical device development tool (MDDT), there is a need to summarize the existing evidence in the form of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Such a review could be referenced by future investigators when performing sample size calculations and when selecting appropriate time horizons for a study design.^6,7 Specifically, when performing sample size calculations comparing interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales using an independent t-test, an estimate of the predicted effect size (eg, the predicted difference in the mean scores between study groups) as well as the variability of the sample (ie, standard deviation (SD)) is required.^8–10 Typically, such values are obtained from previous studies reported within the literature or from expert consultation. To facilitate these predictions, the authors attempt to summarize the existing primary evidence to provide weighted mean differences of various surgical and non-surgical facial aesthetic interventions using commonly reported FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales.⁶

The primary aim of this systematic review was to identify the pre- to post-intervention differences in mean scores for three FACE-Q scales – Face Overall, Psychological Well-being, and Social Function scales – for both surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions.

Methods

This study was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.¹¹ The protocol was registered a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42023404238).

Types of Studies

This review included English language, randomized, quasi-randomized, single cohort, and comparative observational studies that measured mean pre-treatment and post-intervention surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, or Social scales.

Search Strategy

Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched on December 20, 2022 with the assistance of a health sciences librarian (Supplementary Appendix 1).

Studies were included for analysis if they: (1) examined any surgical or non-surgical facial aesthetic intervention in adult patients (≥ 18 years old); (2) used the FACE-Q Aesthetics module Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scale(s) to measure participant scores (with appropriate SDs) pre-intervention and at any time horizon following the intervention; and (3) were a primary observational or experimental study design. Studies were excluded if they: (1) were used in the validation of any FACE-Q Aesthetics Module scale; (2) were case studies, review articles, commentary, or conference abstracts; and (3) were non-English language.

Titles and abstracts, as well as full texts, were screened independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using piloted screening forms. Conflicts were resolved via consensus.

Outcomes

Facial appearance and HRQL outcomes were evaluated in this study using the FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales. Outcome measures selected included the pre-intervention and post-intervention mean difference in the Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scale(s). These scales were selected as they were the most frequently used scales as detailed in a companion paper that described best practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics research.⁶ Any duration of follow-up reported as the study's primary time horizon was extracted; if not specified, data from the final time horizon was used. Outcomes were analysed according to whether the primary intervention was deemed to be surgical or non-surgical.

Notably, the Face Overall scale consists of 10-items that together measure satisfaction with the appearance of the entire face. The Psychological scale contains 10-items and evaluates an individual's psychological function with their facial appearance in mind. Finally, the 8-item Social scale measures social function in the context of facial appearance. The FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales are converted from an ordinal score into a continuous scale, from 0 to 100, where higher scores (ie, a positive pre-intervention and post-intervention mean difference) correspond to improved appearance and HRQL outcomes.

Data Extraction

Data extraction was conducted, independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using a piloted data extraction form created on Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus and discussion with a third reviewer. For primary comparative studies that included two or more intervention groups, pre-intervention and post-intervention FACE-Q data were extracted for each group separately. The following characteristics were extracted: first author, journal, procedure details, time horizon for FACE-Q outcome, and the FACE-Q aesthetic scale pre-intervention and post-intervention mean scores and SD.

Risk of Bias

Risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate using the ‘Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports’ framework.^9,12 Conflicts were resolved via consensus. Assessments are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Included Primary Studies.

Author	Year	Design	Journal	Domain	Facial aesthetic procedure	Procedure details	Risk of bias	FACE-Q Aesthetic Scales			Time horizon
Author	Year	Design	Journal	Domain	Facial aesthetic procedure	Procedure details	Risk of bias	Face overall	Psychological	Social	Time horizon
An et al¹³	2022	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Rhinoplasty with full-face fat transfer	High	✓			NR
Berenguer et al¹⁴	2022	Observational	J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg.	Surgical	Forehead lift	Primary isolated aesthetic forehead reduction	Low		✓	✓	NR
Berger et al¹⁵	2019	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Surgical	Facelift	SMAS Rhytidectomy	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	12 months
Burks et al¹⁶	2022	Observational	Laryngoscope	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Group A: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement and component dorsal hump reductionGroup B: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement	Some concerns			✓	NR
Chen et al¹⁷	2021	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Surgical	Blepharoplasty	Transconjunctival lower blepharoplasty	High			✓	11 months
Denadai et al¹⁸	2019	Observational	J Clin Med.	Surgical	Orthognathic surgery	Orthognathic surgery	Low	✓	✓	✓	12 months
Denadai et al¹⁹	2020	Observational	Plast Reconstr Surg.	Surgical	Orthognathic surgery	Orthognathic surgery	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	NR
Domela Nieuwenhuis et al²⁰	2022	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Surgical	Upper blepharoplasty	Upper blepharoplasty	Some concerns	✓	✓		12 months
Fuller et al²¹	2019	Observational	JAMA Facial Plast Surg.	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement	High			✓	6 months
Gualdi et al²²	2017	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Minimal undermining suspension technique	High	✓	✓	✓	12 months
Hismi et al²³	2021	Observational	Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Group A: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft and alar rim graftGroup B: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft and lateral crural strut graftGroup C: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft	High			✓	NR
Hollander et al²⁴	2022	RCT	Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg	Surgical	Upper blepharoplasty	Group A: Upper blepharoplasty with orbicularis oculi muscle excisionGroup B: Upper blepharoplasty	Low	✓		✓	12 months
Liu et al²⁵	2019	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Surgical	Hair transplant	Follicle unit extraction	Some concerns	✓			6 months
Schwitzer et al²⁶	2015	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Group A: WomenGroup B: Men	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	7 months
Schwitzer et al²⁷	2015	Observational	Plast Reconstr Surg.	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Rhinoplasty	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	5 months
Soni et al²⁸	2020	Observational	J Laryngol Otol.	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Rhinoplasty	High	✓	✓	✓	6 months
Tan et al²⁹	2020	Observational	J Craniomaxillofac Surg.	Surgical	Orthognathic surgery	Group A: Orthognathic surgery for dento-skeletal class II patientsGroup B: Orthognathic surgery for dento-skeletal class III patients	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	16 months
Tuin et al³⁰	2022	Observational	Plast Reconstr Surg.	Surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Facial fat grafting	Low	✓	✓	✓	12 months
Wang et al³¹	2018	Observational	Ann Plast Surg.	Surgical	Facelift	Subcutaneous face and neck lift	Some concerns	✓	✓	✓	12 months
Wang et al³²	2021	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Surgical	Facelift	Periauricular purse-string reinforced with SMAS plication and malar fat pad elevation	Some concerns	✓			11 months
Weitzman et al³³	2021	Observational	Laryngoscope	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Group A: Septorhinoplasty with extended spreader graftGroup B: Septorhinoplasty with standard spreader graft	High			✓	NR
Weitzman et al³⁴	2022	Observational	Laryngoscope	Surgical	Rhinoplasty	Group A: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft with upper lateral cartilage releaseGroup B: Septorhinoplasty with spreader graft	High			✓	NR
Cohen et al³⁵	2022	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	OnabotulinumtoxinA for dynamic rhytids, hyaluronic acid filler for volume restoration and/or for lines and folds, bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% for eyelash hypotrichosis	High		✓	✓	4 months
Hersant et al³⁶	2017	Observational	Lasers Surg Med.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Er:YAG + SMA lazer	High	✓			6 months
Iorio et al³⁷	2012	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	OnabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid filler	High	✓			1 week
Kerscher et al³⁸	2022	Observational	Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Cell-free blood secretome	High	✓	✓	✓	48 weeks
McKeown et al³⁹	2021	Observational	Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Hyaluronic acid filler and/or with onabotulinumtoxinA	High		✓	✓	2 weeks
Ogilvie et al⁴⁰	2020	RCT	Aesthet Surg J.	Non-surgical	Chin augmentation	Hyaluronic acid filler	High		✓		18 months
Ozer et al⁴¹	2019	Observational	J Craniofac Surg.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Micro-autologous fat transplantation with platelet-rich plasma injection	High	✓			9 months
Ozer et al⁴²	2021	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Autologous biologic vitamin-C-added filler	High	✓	✓	✓	4 months
Qureshi et al⁴³	2017	Observational	Aesthetic Plast Surg.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	onabotulinumtoxinA/incobotulinumtoxinA and/or soft-tissue filler	High	✓	✓	✓	1 month
Santorelli et al⁴⁴	2021	Observational	J Cosmet Dermatol.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Thread suspension technique	High	✓			6 months
Tebbens et al⁴⁵	2019	Observational	J Sex Med.	Non-surgical	Facial feminization/masculinization	Group A: TranswomenGroup B: Transmen	Low	✓			12 months
Van Dongen et al⁴⁶	2021	RCT	Aesthet Surg J.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	Group A: Lipofilling + platelet-rich plasma + tissue stromal vascular fractionGroup B: Lipofilling + platelet-rich plasma	High		✓	✓	12 months
Weinkle et al⁴⁷	2018	Observational	Aesthet Surg J.	Non-surgical	Facial rejuvenation	OnabotulinumtoxinA for dynamic rhytids, hyaluronic acid filler for volume restoration and/or for lines and folds, bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% for eyelash hypotrichosis	High	✓			4 months

RCT, Randomized control trial; NR, Not reported.

Data Analysis

The analysis was performed using the general inverse variance method and random-effects models. Continuous outcomes were summarized as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using Review Manager 5 [Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014]. Individual study mean differences were summarized using a pooled, weighted mean difference for each surgical and non-surgical procedure. The test for overall effect for each weighted mean difference and corresponding P-value was calculated using a Z-test. All included studies utilized individual participants as the unit of analysis.

Heterogeneity of pooled results was evaluated using a combination of visual inspection (magnitude of point estimates and overlapping CI of the forest plot) and statistical analyses (Chi² test with significance set at P ≤ 0.10 and I² statistic). The magnitude of heterogeneity was defined by the I² value and categorizes as follows: 0–40% represented ‘might not be important’, 30–60% represented ‘moderate’ heterogeneity, 50–90% represented ‘substantial’ heterogeneity, and 75–100% represented ‘considerable’ heterogeneity. Statistical significance was determined to be P ≤ 0.05.⁴⁸

Results

There were 914 titles and abstracts screened for study inclusion; n = 35 studies were included following the full-text review.^13–47 The PRISMA flow diagram is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of included studies.

Surgical Interventions

Most included studies evaluated surgical facial cosmetic interventions (n = 22, 62.9%) including: blepharoplasty, facelift, forehead lift, facial rejuvenation, hair transplantation, orthognathic surgery, and rhinoplasty (Table 1).

Face Overall Scale

Fifteen studies evaluated outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall scale, for the following procedures: blepharoplasty, facelift, forehead lift, surgical facial rejuvenation (ie, fat grafting), hair transplantation, orthognathic surgery, and rhinoplasty. The pre- and post-intervention mean differences are presented in Figure 2. Two studies (3 cohorts, 2178 participants) evaluated blepharoplasty, corresponding to weighted mean difference of 21.8 points [95% CI 16.8 to 26.7, P < 0.01]. This pooled estimate demonstrated low heterogeneity (I² = 39%) with included studies having ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Three studies (3 cohorts, 262 participants) evaluated facelifts, with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 99%) and ‘moderate’ risk of bias. These studies demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 31.9 points [95% CI 5.8 to 57.9, P = 0.02]. Two studies (2 cohorts, 76 participants) with ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk of bias evaluated various facial rejuvenation procedures – including facial fat grafting and minimal undermining suspension techniques. The weighted mean difference associated with these studies was 7.0 points [95% CI 4.4 to 9.54, P < 0.01] with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). One study (1 cohort, 131 participants) that evaluated hair transplantation demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 29.6 points [95% CI 25.3 to 33.8 points, P < 0.01] and was determined to have ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Three included primary studies (4 cohorts, 246 participants) evaluated the impact of orthognathic surgery. These studies demonstrated ‘low’ to ‘moderate’ risk of bias with a weighted mean difference of 19.6 points [95% CI 13.9 to 25.3, P < 0.01] and ‘substantial’ (I² = 70%) heterogeneity. Finally, three studies (5 cohorts, 142 participants) evaluated rhinoplasty outcomes and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 37.0 points [95% CI 24.7 to 49.3, P < 0.01] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 92%).

Figure 2.

Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Face Overall scale outcomes.

Psychological Scale

Twelve studies evaluated outcomes using the FACE-Q Psychological scale. These pre- and post-intervention mean differences are presented in Figure 3. A single included primary study (1 cohort, 2134 participants) with ‘moderate’ risk of bias that evaluated blepharoplasty outcomes demonstrated a weighted post-operative mean difference of 9 points [95% CI 7.8 to 10.2, P < 0.01]. Another single study that evaluated forehead lifts (1 cohort, 26 participants) with ‘low’ risk of bias demonstrated a mean difference of 67.1 points [95% CI 62.9 to 71.3, P < 0.01]. Two studies (2 cohorts, 174 participants) evaluated facelifts and demonstrated a 16.6 point difference [95% CI −8.9 to 42.1, P = 0.2] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 97%) and ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Surgical facial rejuvenation procedures (2 cohorts, 76 participants) with ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk of bias showed a weighted mean difference of 10.7 points [95% CI 7.5 to 13.8, P < 0.01] with heterogeneity that ‘might not be important’ (I² = 0). Two studies evaluated rhinoplasty (4 cohorts, 122 participants) and reported a post-operative weighted mean difference of 21.7 points [95% CI 5.79 to 37.6, P = 0.01] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 88%) as well as ‘high’ and ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Finally, orthognathic surgery outcomes were evaluated in three studies (4 cohorts, 246 participants) and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 17.3 points [95% CI 14.0 to 20.6, P < 0.01] with low heterogeneity (I² = 0) and ‘moderate’ risk of bias.

Figure 3.

Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Psychological scale outcomes.

Social Scale

Eighteen surgical studies evaluated outcomes using the FACE-Q Social scale (Figure 4). Two studies (3 cohorts, 106 participants) evaluated blepharoplasty outcomes and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 14.6 points [95% CI 9.9 to 19.3, P < 0.01] with ‘low’ heterogeneity (I² = 0) as well as ‘high’ and ‘low’ risk of bias. One study (1 cohort, 26 participants) with ‘low’ risk of bias that evaluated outcomes following forehead lift procedures reported a post-operative mean difference of 63.9 points [95% CI 53.2 to 74.6, P < 0.01]. Two studies (2 cohorts, 174 participants) evaluated facelift procedures and demonstrated a 14.9 point mean difference [95% CI −4.4 to 34.1, P = 0.13] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 94%) and ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Surgical facial rejuvenation procedures were assessed by two studies (2 cohorts, 76 participants) with ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk of bias. These studies demonstrated a pooled mean difference of 12.8 points [95% CI 10.2 to 15.4, P < 0.01] with ‘low’ heterogeneity (I² = 0). Orthognathic surgery was evaluated by three studies (4 cohorts, 246 participants) which demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 18.5 points [95% CI 15.1 to 21.9, P < 0.01] with ‘low’ heterogeneity (I² = 0) as well as ‘low’ and ‘moderate’ risk of bias. Finally, seven studies (14 cohorts, 1921 participants) evaluated rhinoplasty and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 11.6 points [95% CI 7.7 to 15.4, P < 0.01] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 83%) and ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ risk of bias.

Figure 4.

Forest plot for surgical interventions with FACE-Q Social scale outcomes.

Non-surgical Interventions

Of the studies evaluating non-surgical interventions (n = 13, 37.1%), procedures included minimally invasive chin augmentation, non-surgical facial feminization/masculinization, and facial rejuvenation procedures (Table 1).

Face Overall Scale

Nine studies evaluated outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall scale (Figure 5). One study (2 cohorts, 21 participants) that evaluated outcomes following non-surgical facial feminization/masculinization procedures demonstrated a weighted 10.0 point mean increase [95% CI 1.6 to 18.4, P = 0.02] in post-intervention Face Overall scores. The included point estimates had minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0%) and were determined to have ‘low’ risk of bias. Finally, eight studies (8 cohorts, 360 participants) evaluated various non-surgical facial rejuvenation interventions (ie, refer to Table 1 for specific interventions) and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 20.5 points [95% CI 13.0 to 28.0, P < 0.01]. The heterogeneity of included studies was determined to be ‘considerable’ (I² = 94%) and all studies demonstrated ‘high’ risk of bias.

Figure 5.

Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Face Overall scale outcomes.

Psychological Scale

Nine studies utilized the FACE-Q Psychological scale to evaluate outcomes following non-surgical chin augmentation and facial rejuvenation procedures (Figure 6). One study (1 cohort, 78 participants) that evaluated outcomes following chin augmentation demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 7.1 points [95% CI 1.1 to 13.1, P = 0.02] and was determined to be ‘high’ risk of bias overall. The remaining six studies (7 cohorts, 301 participants) evaluated a range of minimally invasive facial rejuvenation procedures (Table 1) and demonstrated a weighted mean difference of 14.7 points [95% CI 6.0 to 23.4, P < 0.01] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 88%). The risk of bias for all included studies was determined to be ‘high’.

Figure 6.

Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Psychological scale outcomes.

Social Scale

Six studies (7 cohorts, 301 participants) evaluated a range of minimally invasive facial rejuvenation procedures using the FACE-Q Social scale (Figure 7). These studies demonstrated a weighted post-operative mean difference of 12.7 points [95% CI 5.5 to 19.8, P < 0.01] with ‘considerable’ heterogeneity (I² = 83%) and ‘high’ risk of bias for all included studies.

Figure 7.

Forest plot for non-surgical interventions with FACE-Q Social scale outcomes.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to identify the expected mean difference estimates and time horizons associated with studies evaluating outcomes using the FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and/or Social scales. There was significant heterogeneity identified across surgical and non-surgical interventions as well as procedure type, with most included studies demonstrating ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ risk of bias. Additionally, weighted mean differences for the Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scales yielded similar estimates when surgical and minimally invasive interventions were compared. For example, across included studies evaluating Face Overall scale outcomes following blepharoplasty, we identified a weighted mean increase of 21.8 points [95% CI 16.8 to 16.7] post-operatively. Similarly, a 20.5 point [95% CI 13.0 to 28.0] increase in Face Overall scale scores was identified following non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures. Similar post-operative mean differences were noted for Psychological scale outcomes following surgical facelifts (16.6 points) and non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures (14.7 points) as well as Social scale outcomes following rhinoplasty (11.6 points) and non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures (12.7 points).

These examples are further illustrated through likely participant pre-intervention and post-intervention item responses using the available interpretation tables provided for the FACE-Q Face Overall (Figure 8), Psychological (Figure 9), and Social scales (Figure 10). These interpretation tables enable clinicians and researchers to convert continuous mean FACE-Q Aesthetic module scale scores (scored from 0 to 100) to the implied ordinal response, on average, for each item/response option based directly on threshold plots produced through the Rasch analysis. Ultimately, this enables primary users of the FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales to visualize how the intervention directly translates to changes in participant ordinal responses.

Figure 8.

FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention face overall scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Blepharoplasty; (b) non-surgical Facial rejuvenation procedures.

Figure 9.

FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention psychological scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Facelift; (b) non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures.

Figure 10.

FACE-Q pre-intervention and post-intervention social scale responses, by item and response category. (a) Rhinoplasty; (b) non-surgical facial rejuvenation procedures.

Regardless of the aesthetic intervention used, all weighted pre- to post-procedure mean differences in FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales corresponded to improved self-reported appearance and HRQL outcomes. Facial aesthetic treatments may play an important role in improving how people feel about themselves and interact with others; this notion is further supported by Litner et al⁴⁹ who demonstrated that quality of life was significantly enhanced following facial aesthetic surgery in a prospective cohort of 93 patients. Similarly, Meningaud et al⁵⁰ identified improvements in patient anxiety 9 months following facial cosmetic interventions.

The US FDA qualified 11 FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales as MDDTs; thus, it is necessary to examine the existing literature to identify the expected mean differences in FACE-Q scales associated with common facial cosmetic procedures. As such, this systematic review seeks to expand on existing narrative summaries by Ottenhof et al³ and Hoffman and Fabi⁴ to provide expected mean differences for various surgical and non-surgical facial cometic interventions and their associated risk of bias. These estimates and associated time horizons may be used as the basis for sample size calculations when planning future observational and randomized studies.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, included studies across all FACE-Q scales demonstrated substantial heterogeneity. While not explicitly explored in this analysis, this is expected to be due to variability in participant characteristics and procedural techniques within included studies, differing time horizons for primary outcomes, and varying risk of bias. Thus, the weighted mean differences presented in this analysis should be interpreted with caution. The authors recommend utilizing this meta-analysis as a tool to predict expected mean differences in FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores associated with a particular facial cosmetic intervention. Readers should review the primary articles of included studies to determine which primary study most closely reflects their anticipated patient population. Second, only the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was included in our grey literature search; thus, there may be additional unpublished works excluded from this analysis. Lastly, this review includes only primary studies that reported mean pre-treatment and post-treatment FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores. Other outcomes which may be deemed to be important to patients, such as facial function, infection, and need for revision surgery were not evaluated. Additionally, studies that present only post-treatment FACE-Q outcomes, or isolated mean differences without pre-intervention and post-intervention mean scores, were not reflected in this analysis.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis presented expected mean differences in FACE-Q Face Overall, Psychological, and Social scale scores for various surgical and non-surgical facial cosmetic interventions that may be used as the basis for sample size calculations when planning future studies using these scales. Notably, we identified significant heterogeneity within included studies that is likely due to differing patient characteristics, procedural techniques, and variations in time horizons for FACE-Q outcomes, which limits comparison of facial cosmetic interventions through conventional meta-analyses. As these FACE-Q scales are not intervention specific, they can be used to compare surgical and minimally invasive facial aesthetic procedures directly utilizing the same continuous scale. Going forward, additional observational and randomized study evidence is needed to directly compare facial aesthetic interventions, particularly surgical and minimally invasive facial cosmetic procedures, using the FACE-Q Aesthetic module scales.

Disclosure

Drs Cano, Pusic and Klassen are co-developers of FACE-Q Aesthetics and receive a share of any license revenue from based on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's inventor sharing policy.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503231225480 - Supplemental material for Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503231225480 for Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Lucas Gallo, Patrick Kim and Isabella F. Churchill, Matteo Gallo, Morgan Yuan, Sophocles H. Voineskos, Achilles Thoma, Andrea L. Pusic, Anne F. Klassen, Stefan J. Cano in Plastic Surgery

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Patrick Kim

Isabella F. Churchill

Morgan Yuan

Sophocles H. Voineskos

Achilles Thoma

Lucas Gallo

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Qportfolio. FACE-Q | Aesthetics - Q-Portfolio MEASURING WHAT MATTERS TO PATIENTS. Accessed May 20 2023, https://qportfolio.org/face-q/aesthetics/.

Hibler

Schwitzer

Rossi

. Assessing improvement of facial appearance and quality of life after minimally-invasive cosmetic dermatology procedures using the FACE-Q scales. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(1):62–67.

Ottenhof

Veldhuizen

Hensbergen

, et al. The use of the FACE-Q aesthetic: a narrative review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(6):2769-2780. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02974-9

Hoffman

Fabi

. Look better, feel better, live better? The impact of minimally invasive aesthetic procedures on satisfaction with appearance and psychosocial wellbeing. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022;15(5):47.

Klassen

Cano

Schwitzer

, et al. Development and psychometric validation of the FACE-Q skin, lips, and facial rhytids appearance scales and adverse effects checklists for cosmetic procedures. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(4):443–451.

Gallo

Kim

Yuan

, et al. Best practices for FACE-Q aesthetics research: a systematic review of study methodology. Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(9):NP674–NP686. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad141

Snyder

. FDA recognizes The PSF-supported FACE-Q as a Medical Device Development Tool. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/fda-recognizes-the-psf-supported-face-q-as-a-medical-device-development-tool.

Hulley

Cummings

Browner

Grady

Newman

. Designing Clinical Research. 4 ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins (LWW); 2013.

Schmidt

Hollestein

. Research techniques made simple: sample size estimation and power calculation. J Invest Dermatol. 2018;138(8):1678–1682.

10.

Sakpal

. Sample size estimation in clinical trial. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1(2):67.

11.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906

12.

Murad

Sultan

Haffar

Bazerbachi

. Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ EBM. 2018;23(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110853

13.

Wang

Zhen

Zhao

. Rhinoplasty with simultaneous autologous full-face fat transfer for Asian facial contouring balance: a retrospective study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023;47(2):746–756.

14.

Berenguer

García

Lorca-García

San-Basilio

. Aesthetic forehead reduction in female patients: surgical details and analysis of outcome. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(1):407–414.

15.

Berger

Weigert

Pascal

Hufschmidt

Casoli

. Assessing improvement of patient satisfaction following facelift surgery using the FACE-Q scales: a prospective and multicenter study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43(2):370-375.

16.

Burks

Weitzman

Lindsay

. The impact of component dorsal hump reduction on patient-perceived nasal aesthetics and obstruction in rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(11):2157–2161.

17.

Chen

Zhang

Zhu

Huang

. Fat repositioning with a combination of internal fixation and external fixation in transconjunctival lower blepharoplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(8):893–902.

18.

Denadai

Chou

, et al. Facial appearance and psychosocial features in orthognathic surgery: a FACE-Q-and 3D facial image-based comparative study of patient-, clinician-, and lay-observer-reported outcomes. J Clin Med. 2019;8(6):909.

19.

Denadai

Chou

Lin

. The impacts of orthognathic surgery on the facial appearance and age perception of patients presenting skeletal class III deformity: an outcome study using the FACE-Q report and surgical professional-based panel assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(4):1035–1046.

20.

Domela Nieuwenhuis

Luong

Vissers

Hummelink

Slijper

Ulrich

. Assessment of patient satisfaction with appearance, psychological well-being, and aging appraisal after upper blepharoplasty: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(4):340–348.

21.

Fuller

Levesque

Lindsay

. Analysis of patient-perceived nasal appearance evaluations following functional septorhinoplasty with spreader graft placement. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019;21(4):305–311.

22.

Gualdi

Cambiaso-Daniel

Gatti

, et al. Minimal undermining suspension technique (MUST): combined eyebrow and mid-face lift via temporal access. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41(1):40-46.

23.

Hismi

Burks

Locascio

Lindsay

. Comparative effectiveness of cartilage grafts in functional rhinoplasty for nasal sidewall collapse. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2022;24(3):240–246.

24.

Hollander

Delli

Vissink

Schepers

Jansma

. Patient-reported aesthetic outcomes of upper blepharoplasty: a randomized controlled trial comparing two surgical techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51(9):1161–1169.

25.

Liu

Fan

Miao

. Evaluating the satisfaction of patients undergoing hair transplantation surgery using the FACE-Q scales. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43(2):376-382.

26.

Schwitzer

Albino

Mathis

Scott

Gamble

Baker

. Assessing demographic differences in patient-perceived improvement in facial appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(7):784–793.

27.

Schwitzer

Sher

Fan

Scott

Gamble

Baker

. Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(5):830e–837e.

28.

Soni

Patro

Aneja

Kaushal

Goyal

Shakrawal

. Post-rhinoplasty outcomes in an Indian population assessed using the FACE-Q appraisal scales: a prospective observational study. J Laryngol Otol. 2020;134(3):247–251.

29.

Tan

Leung

Tang

Zwahlen

. Patient's satisfaction with facial appearance and psycho-social wellness after orthognathic surgery among Hong Kong Chinese using the FACE-Q. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(12):1106–1111.

30.

Tuin

Schepers

Spijkervet

Vissink

Jansma

. Volumetric effect and patient satisfaction after facial fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(2):307e–318e.

31.

Wang

Yang

Guo

, et al. Periauricular purse-string reinforced with SMAS plication and malaria fat pad elevation for mid-and lower facial rejuvenation: FACE-Q report. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81(6S Suppl 1):S59–s65. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000001496

32.

Wang

Zhao

Xie

. Subcutaneous face and neck lift: a traditional method with definite effects among Asians. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(12):NP1890–NP1903.

33.

Weitzman

Gadkaree

Justicz

Lindsay

. Patient-perceived nasal appearance after septorhinoplasty with spreader versus extended spreader graft. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(4):765–772.

34.

Weitzman

Gadkaree

Justicz

Lindsay

. The impact of upper lateral cartilage release on patient-perceived nasal appearance and obstruction. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(6):1189–1195.

35.

Cohen

Rivkin

Dayan

, et al. Multimodal facial aesthetic treatment on the appearance of aging, social confidence, and psychological well-being: HARMONY study. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(2):NP115–NP124. doi:10.1093/asj/sjab114

36.

Hersant

SidAhmed-Mezi

Chossat

Meningaud

. Multifractional microablative laser combined with spacially modulated ablative (SMA) technology for facial skin rejuvenation. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49(1):78–83. doi:10.1002/lsm.22561

37.

Iorio

Stolle

Brown

Christian

Baker

. Plastic surgery training: evaluating patient satisfaction with facial fillers in a resident clinic. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36(6):1361–1366. doi:10.1007/s00266-012-9973-3

38.

Kerscher

Wagner-Schiffler

Noah

, et al. Cell-free blood cell secretome (BCS) counteracts skin aging: multi-center prospective regenerative aesthetic medicine study using exokine®. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2022;15:1157-1173. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.S357810

39.

McKeown

. Impact of minimally invasive aesthetic procedures on the psychological and social dimensions of health. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9(4):e3578. doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000003578

40.

Ogilvie

Benouaiche

Philipp-Dormston

, et al. VYC-25L hyaluronic acid injectable gel is safe and effective for long-term restoration and creation of volume of the lower face. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(9):Np499–np510. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa013

41.

Ozer

Colak

. Micro-autologous fat transplantation combined with platelet-rich plasma for facial filling and regeneration: a clinical perspective in the shadow of evidence-based medicine. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(3):672–677. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000005122

42.

Ozer

Atan

Çolak

. Autologous biological vitamin-C-added (ABC) filler for facial volume restoration. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021;45(5):2328–2337. doi:10.1007/s00266-021-02297-1

43.

Qureshi

Parikh

Sharma

Myckatyn

Tenenbaum

. Nonsurgical facial rejuvenation: outcomes and safety of neuromodulator and soft-tissue filler procedures performed in a resident cosmetic clinic. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41(5):1177–1183. doi:10.1007/s00266-017-0892-1

44.

Santorelli

Cerullo

Cirillo

Cavallini

Avvedimento

. Mid-face reshaping using threads with bidirectional convergent barbs: a retrospective study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20(6):1591–1597. doi:10.1111/jocd.14038

45.

Tebbens

Nota

Liberton

, et al. Gender-affirming hormone treatment induces facial feminization in transwomen and masculinization in transmen: quantification by 3D scanning and patient-reported outcome measures. J Sex Med. 2019;16(5):746–754. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.02.011

46.

van Dongen

Boxtel

Willemsen

, et al. The addition of tissue stromal vascular fraction to platelet-rich plasma supplemented lipofilling does not improve facial skin quality: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(8):Np1000–np1013. doi:10.1093/asj/sjab109

47.

Weinkle

Werschler

Teller

, et al. Impact of comprehensive, minimally invasive, multimodal aesthetic treatment on satisfaction with facial appearance: the HARMONY study. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(5):540–556. doi:10.1093/asj/sjx179

48.

Deeks

Higgins

Altman

DG.

Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol 2. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2019.

49.

Litner

Rotenberg

Dennis

Adamson

. Impact of cosmetic facial surgery on satisfaction with appearance and quality of life. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008;10(2):79–83.

50.

Meningaud

Benadiba

Servant

Herve

Bertrand

Pelicier

. Depression, anxiety and quality of life: outcome 9 months after facial cosmetic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003;31(1):46–50.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB