Effectiveness of growth factor-induced therapy for skin rejuvenation: A case series

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature.

METHODS

A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis.

RESULTS

There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded.

RESULTS

Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas.

DISCUSSION

The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Topical growth factors and home-based microneedling for facial skin rejuvenation

BACKGROUND

Cosmeceutical products are an important therapeutic option for facial rejuvenation. Of these, topical application of growth factors has been shown to increase dermal collagen synthesis, improve skin texture, and reduce fine lines and wrinkles. Limited data exist for the use of growth factors in combination with microneedling.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, single-center, uncontrolled study evaluated the efficacy of topical growth factor treatment in conjunction with transdermal delivery of growth factors via home-based microneedling for facial skin rejuvenation.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Eleven healthy female individuals aged 33-61 years, with mild-moderate facial wrinkling were included in the study. Over 3 months, participants received twice-daily application of a topical recombinant human growth factor preparation (SkinGenuity^® Regenerative and Reparative Serums) along with twice-weekly transdermal delivery of growth factors using a home-based microneedling (0.2 mm) device. Objective skin analysis (VISIA^® ) and a subjective patient-reported outcome (FACE-Q^® ) assessment measuring satisfaction with appearance were performed at baseline and after 3 months.

RESULTS

Objective skin analysis showed a significant improvement in skin texture (17.6%, p < 0.001), wrinkles (17.3%, p < 0.001), red areas (12.4%, p =0.004), and brown spots (6.0%, p =0.03) at 3 months follow-up. FACE-Q scales showed a significant improvement from baseline, including satisfaction with skin, facial appearance, nasolabial folds, cheeks, and lower face/jawline (all p ≤ 0.02). Numerical improvement in adverse effects related to skin was also observed (p = 0.07). No serious adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Three months of twice-daily topical growth factor treatment in conjunction with transdermal delivery of growth factors via microneedling improved skin analysis parameters and participant-reported outcome measures, indicative of facial skin rejuvenation.

Measuring outcomes for temple hollowing treatment: Content validity of new and existing FACE-Q scales

BACKGROUND

The FACE-Q, a validated, modular patient-reported outcome measure with global uptake, currently does not have a scale to measure the appearance of the temples. Objectives of our study were to develop a new FACE-Q scale for appearance of temples and assess content validity of two existing FACE-Q scales in the context of temple hollowing: Satisfaction with Facial Appearance and Psychological Function.

METHODS

A heterogeneous sample of adults who were seeking or had received treatments for temple hollowing was recruited from three outpatient clinics in the United States. Semi-structured interviews using an interpretive description approach were completed to elicit concepts and generate an item pool and assess content validity of the two existing FACE-Q scales. The item pool data were used to develop preliminary Temple scale, which was refined based on patient and expert feedback.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 15, 55 ± 9 years) described a range of esthetic concerns related to temple hollowing and its treatment. The data were used to draft the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Temples scale, which was refined through input from patients (N = 12) and clinicians (N = 5), resulting in a 16-item FACE-Q Satisfaction with Temples scale. The scale covers concepts of fullness, harmony, scenarios (eg, mirror, bright lights), age, and shape. Content validity of the two existing FACE-Q scales was substantiated.

CONCLUSION

The FACE-Q Satisfaction with Temples scale fills an important gap in patient-reported outcome measurement in facial esthetics. The scale will be field-tested to finalize content and develop the scoring algorithm prior to implementation in clinical practice and research.