Measuring aesthetic results after facial skin cancer surgery by means of the FACE-Q

Patient-reported outcome measurements in facial skin surgery and a comparison between Mohs micrographic surgery and conventional excisions

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the psychosocial impact of facial skin surgery on patients can help improve counselling strategies.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to measure the psychological impact of facial skin cancer surgery on patients over a 1-year period. Secondary objective was to measure the difference between Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and conventional excision (CE) on these parameters.

METHODS

This observational survey study was conducted between March 2019 and July 2020. Patients who had facial skin surgery using MMS or CE were selected. Five surveys were conducted on four timepoints (preoperative, 1 week, 3 months and 1 year post-operative) measuring the quality of life, perceived stigmatization, body image, satisfaction with facial appearance and psychosocial distress.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients (MMS 154 patients, CE 74 patients) were included for the analysis. Scores for quality of life did not significantly change, in the year after surgery (PCS-12 mean 50.5, SD 9.3 and MCS-12 50.6, SD 9.4); however, stigmatization (F (3, 235,39) 7,26, p < 0.01, d = -0.07), body image concerns (F (3, 198,28) = 3.75, p < 0.01, d = -0.14), satisfaction with facial appearance (F (3, 205,18) = 10.74, p < 0.01, d = 0.43) and psychosocial distress (F (3, 208,69) = 9.26, p < 0.01, d = -0.15) did change over time. The use of MMS or CE did not significantly affect outcome scores after 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving facial skin cancer surgery exhibited low scores for perceived stigmatization and body image concerns. Their quality of life was not statistically influenced by facial surgery, and their satisfaction with their facial appearance and psychosocial distress even improved after 1 year. The results suggest that the surgical treatment type (MMS or CE) does not influence the outcome. The overall results can help in counselling strategies to improve expectations for patients receiving facial surgery.

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 .