This work reviews the current state of patient-reported outcomes research in periocular cosmetic plastic surgery.
Materials and Methods:
A systematic review of the English-language medical literature from January 1946 through March 2013 was conducted for patient-reported outcomes measures used in periocular cosmetic plastic surgery patient populations. These measures were assessed for adherence to minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research.
Results:
Thirteen outcome measures were identified. Upper-lid blepharoplasty was the only procedure for which an instrument, the Blepharoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, had been formally developed in the target patient group (periocular cosmetic surgery), and that met or exceeded minimum standards of reporting. Nine formally developed instruments were identified in the following applications: general facial cosmetic surgery (instruments that may be applied to periocular surgery, which are not restricted to any single facial intervention or anatomic region), chemodenervation, filler, and skin treatment. Of these, 5 instruments met minimum standards.
Conclusions:
Few well-developed, patient-reported outcomes measures targeted at periocular cosmetic patients exist at this time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlsarrafR. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2000;24(3):192–197.
2.
CanoSJKlassenAPusicAL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: A primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:98e–106e.
3.
GarrattASchmidtLMackintoshAFitzpatrickR. Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324:1417.
4.
PusicALLemaineVKlassenAFScottAMCanoSJ. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: Use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1361–1367.
DowardLCGnanasakthyABakerMG. Patient reported outcomes: Looking beyond the label claim. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2010;8:89.
7.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2012 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Arlington Heights, Ill: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2013.
8.
ClaphamPJPushmanAGChungKC. A systematic review of applying patient satisfaction outcomes in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1826–1833.
9.
KosowskiTRMcCarthyCReaveyPL. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1819–1827.
10.
ChingSThomaAMcCabeREAntonyMM. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: A comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:469–480; discussion 481–482.
11.
RheeJSMcMullinBT. Measuring outcomes in facial plastic surgery: A decade of progress. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;16:387–393.
12.
ReeveBBWyrwichKWWuAW. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. Jaunary 14, 2013 [epub ahead of print].
13.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193–205.
14.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Silver Spring, Md: Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
15.
FedericiTJMeyerDRLiningerLL. Correlation of the vision-related functional impairment associated with blepharoptosis and the impact of blepharoptosis surgery. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1705–1712.
16.
BattuVKMeyerDRWobigJL. Improvement in subjective visual function and quality of life outcome measures after blepharoptosis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:677–686.
17.
RaschkeGFBaderR-DRiegerUMSchultze-MosgauS. Photo-assisted analysis of blepharoplasty results. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:328–333.
HarrisDLCarrAT. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59): A new psychometric scale for the evaluation of patients with disfigurements and aesthetic problems of appearance. Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54:216–222.
20.
LitnerJARotenbergBWDennisMAdam-SonPA. Impact of cosmetic facial surgery on satisfaction with appearance and quality of life. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008;10:79–83.
21.
HonigmanRJJacksonACDowlingNA. The PreFACE: A preoperative psychosocial screen for elective facial cosmetic surgery and cosmetic dentistry patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:16–23.
22.
KlassenAFCanoSJScottASnellLPusicAL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: Development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg. 2010;26:303–309.
23.
CoxSEFinnJCStetlerLMackowiakJKowalskiJW. Development of the Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and initial results for botulinum toxin type A-treated patients. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:444–449; discussion 449.
24.
HesslerJLMoyerCAKimJCBakerSRMoyerJS. Predictors of satisfaction with facial plastic surgery: Results of a prospective study. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2010;12:192–196.
25.
MeningaudJ-PBenadibaLServantJ-MHerveCBertrandJ-CPelicierY. Depression, anxiety and quality of life: Outcome 9 months after facial cosmetic surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2003; 31:46–50.
26.
SommerBZschockeIBergfeldDSattlerGAugustinM. Satisfaction of patients after treatment with botulinum toxin for dynamic facial lines. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:456–460.
27.
FagienSCoxSEFinnJCWerschlerWPKowalskiJW. Patient-reported outcomes with botulinum toxin type A treatment of glabellar rhytids: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(spec no):S2–89.
28.
CarruthersCCarruthersJ. Eyebrow height after botulinum toxin type A to the glabella. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(spec no):S26–831.
29.
SclafaniAPPizziLJutkowitzEMuellerNJungM. FILLERS-Q: An instrument for assessing patient experiences after treatment with facial injectable soft tissue fillers. Facial Plast Surg. 2010; 26:310–319.
30.
AugustinMSchäferIRabiniSLee-SeifertCRadtkeMRustenbachSJ. Assessing the value of supportive skin care: Development and validation of an instrument for evaluating patient-relevant benefit. Dermatology. 2009;218:255–259.
31.
KarsaiSRaulinC. Comparison of clinical outcome parameters, the Patient Benefit Index (PBI-k) and patient satisfaction after ablative fractional laser treatment of peri-orbital rhytides. Lasers Surgery Med. 2010;42:215–223.
32.
BourneRBMaloneyWJWrightJG. An AOA critical issue: The outcome of the outcomes movement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(3):633–640.
33.
WareJESherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.
34.
MangioneCMLeePPGutierrezPRSpritzerKBerrySHaysRD. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050–1058.
35.
SaxenaSCarlsonDBillingtonR. The WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-Bref): The importance of its items for cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:711–721.
36.
HolmesJMLeskeDAColeSR. A symptom survey and quality of life questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1675–1680.
37.
YeattsRP. Quality of life in patients with Graves ophthalmopathy. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2005;103:368–411.
38.
TerweeCBWiersingaWM. Graves' quality of life. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1416–1417; author reply 1417–1418.
39.
JamiesonS. Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Med Educ. 2004;38:1217–1218.
40.
BondTGFoxCM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
41.
DiLorioCK. Measurement in Health Behavior: Methods for Research and Education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
42.
SearsE DavisChungKC. A guide to interpreting a study of patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1200–1207.
