Adverse Event Incidences following Facial Plastic Surgery Procedures: Incorporating FACE-Q Data to Improve Patient Preparation

Patient-reported outcomes: A primer for plastic surgeons

Surgical care today is no longer evaluated only on clinical outcomes but also on holistic patient wellbeing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a representation of the patient's perspective on their results and wellbeing. The aim of this review is to establish PROs as the center of healthcare and plastic surgery, to delineate important PROs in plastic surgery practice and research, to discuss the future of PROs within our discipline, and to encourage surgeons to incorporate PROs into their practice. PROs are an important parallel of clinical outcomes in that they can use the patient's perspective to 1) support clinical findings, 2) detect differences in care when there are no clear clinical differences, 3) track progress longitudinally, and 4) support systemic improvements in healthcare. Plastic surgery as a field is naturally aligned with PROs because, as a discipline, we focus on patient form and function. The emerging forefronts of plastic surgery such as lymphedema care, gender-affirming care, peripheral nerve surgery, migraine surgery, and breast implant illness are critically dependent on PROs. In the next decade, we predict that there will be a continued proliferation of robust PRO measures and integration into healthcare delivery. Outcomes research in surgery should continue to evolve as surgeons provide increasingly more benefits to improve patient wellbeing. Plastic surgeons must continue to play a prominent role in the future of PROs.

Treatment of scars with autologous fat grafting and 1540 nm non-ablative erbium laser

Scars may be devastating for patients. Fat grafting and non-ablative lasers are available options for improvement. The former reshapes and improves scar quality by adding volume and regenerative adipose-derived stem cells, whereas the latter facilitates synthesis and deposition of new dermal collagen. The combination may be synergic, leading to better cosmetic outcome.This was a prospective study of 16 consecutive patients treated with autologous fat grafting and non-ablative 1540-nm erbium laser for facial scars between January 2015 and December 2015. Treatment protocol included fat injection followed by five treatments with 1540-nm erbium laser (ICON^TM Cynosure; Westford, MA, USA) a month later. We evaluated patients before, after treatments, and 6 months after the final treatment.Sixteen patients participated in our study. Mean patient age was 42 years (range 16-59 years). Scars were either traumatic (73%) or acne induced (27%). Traumatic scars were mainly new scars, with the majority of patients were treated within 30 days of injury. There were no reported complications. Scars improved in both texture and appearance and patient satisfaction was high in all cases.Treatment of scars with autologous fat grafting and fractional non-ablative 1540-nm erbium laser is safe and efficient and results in improved scar appearance and texture.

Conservative Neck Rejuvenation

In the field of facial rejuvenation, among the recurrent topics, one of the most discussed is the return to less invasive techniques. Lower face rejuvenation is best achieved acting on the platysma muscle. Many techniques are used and usually include platysma section, redundancy reduction, and redraping. Platysma plication is also used especially in secondary cases because of the increased risk of nerve injury due to possible anatomical damage caused by previous operations. A technique that preserves the deep planes based on a new plication method is proposed (conservative neck rejuvenation). In this technique, the dissection plane is only subcutaneous to reduce the risk of nerve injuries. An effective neck contouring is possible using a simpler technique with very good results and a lower rate of morbidity.

Adverse events in facial plastic surgery: Data-driven insights into systems, standards, and self-assessment

PURPOSE

Complications in facial plastic surgery can lead to pain, suffering, and permanent harm. Yet, the etiology and outcomes of adverse events are understudied. This study aims to determine the etiology and outcomes of adverse events reported in aesthetic facial plastic surgery and identify quality improvement opportunities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey analysis was conducted using an anonymous 22-item questionnaire distributed to members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) and American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS). Participants were queried on demographics, practice type, and adverse events related to aesthetic facial surgeries.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-three individuals participated; nearly half of respondents (49.0%) held membership in both AAO-HNS and AAFPRS. Of these, 40.8% of respondents reported at least one adverse event within the past 12 months of practice. A total of 194 adverse events were reported, most commonly related to facelift (n = 59/194, 30.4%), rhinoplasty (n = 55/194, 28.4%), and injection procedures (n = 38/194, 19.6%), with hematoma or seroma being the most commonly described. Most adverse events were self-limited, but approximately 68% resulted in further procedures. Surgeon error or poor judgement (n = 42) and patient non-adherence (n = 18) were the most commonly ascribed reasons for adverse events; 37.1% of participants reported a change in clinical practice after the incident.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events were not infrequent in facial plastic surgery. Understanding these adverse events can provide impetus for tracking outcomes, standardization, and engagement with lifelong learning, self-assessment, and evaluation of practice performance.

Cross-cultural validation of the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance Overall Scale (FACE-Q SFAOS) in Brazilian rhytidoplasty patients

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to culturally validate the FACE-Q - Satisfaction with Facial Appearance Overall Scale (Face-Q SFAOS) in a population of Brazilian rhytidoplasty patients.

METHOD

Authorization for the translation and validation of the questionnaire was obtained from the FACE-Q SFAOS distribution rights holders. The FACE-Q SFAOS was translated and then back-translated. For cultural validation, a total of 57 women were selected 5 to 8 months after undergoing rhytidoplasty. Twenty of them participated in the cultural adaptation, 30 participated in the reproducibility analysis, and 57 participated in the construct validation.

RESULTS

The analysis identified two factors (general appearance and face geometry) that exhibited excellent internal consistency. The total satisfaction score, which comprised nine items, also presented excellent internal consistency. Good reproducibility was found for Overall Appearance, Geometry and Total. There was a difference in the satisfaction means (total and factors) between procedure locations; patients undergoing frontal, upper eyelid and lower eyelid procedures were less satisfied than those who did not undergo such procedures. Satisfaction was higher with geometry than with overall face appearance.

CONCLUSION

The FACE-Q SFAOS was adapted to the cultural context of Brazilian rhytidoplasty patients and was reproducible, and the scale exhibited face, content and construct validity.

Assessment of Rhinoplasty Outcomes with FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module: Norwegian Linguistic Validation and Clinical Application in 243 Patients

Patient satisfaction after rhinoplasty is a growing area of research. The FACE-Q Rhinoplasty Module, used to assess these values, requires translation to national languages.

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Linguistic Validation of the FACE-Q Questionnaire for Brazilian Portuguese

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measurement instruments (PRO) are a good way to measure results after aesthetic procedures. FACE-Q is a systematized and standardized PRO tool and was not available in Portuguese.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included four stages: translation of FACE-Q, backtranslation, testing in patients who underwent facial aesthetic procedures and review of the questionnaires between September and December, 2018. Guidelines merging WHO and ISPOR's rules were followed.

RESULTS

Translation was conducted by two translators, resulting in two versions, translation A and translation B, which were reconciled to generate the first Portuguese version. Reconciliation showed inconsistencies between TA and TB in 63% (n = 222) of the 353 questions, which were solved by maintaining TA in 25% of cases (n = 87), TB in 27% and a new version in 11% (n = 40) of the questions. Backtranslation showed written differences with the original FACE-Q in 64 (22.7%) of the 353 question, but only one case of semantic difference, which was corrected resulting in production of the second Portuguese version. Seven patients with a mean age of 35.8 years were interviewed to assess the difficulty in understanding the questionnaires. Four patients had no or minor difficulties understanding the questionnaire, and the other three had difficulties and suggested changes that led to a third Portuguese version. The third version was reviewed for grammar and spelling resulting in the final Portuguese version.

CONCLUSION

A Brazilian Portuguese version of the FACE-Q questionnaire was obtained maintaining equivalency with the source instrument. This will allow cross-cultural research and comparison of results between different studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

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 .