This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Quality of Life  • Facial Plastic Surgery  • Cosmetic Surgery/ Procedures  • Nasal Surgery  • Rhinoplasty  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Pilot Study

Ramsey Alsarraf, MD, MPH; Wayne F. Larrabee, Jr, MD, MPH; Shelia Anderson, RN; Craig S. Murakami, MD; Calvin M. Johnson, Jr, MD

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001;3:198-201.

Objective  To test 4 previously published outcomes instruments (the Facelift Outcomes Evaluation, the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, the Blepharoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, and the Skin Rejuvenation Outcomes Evaluation) in terms of their reliability and validity in assessing patient-related outcomes of surgical intervention.

Design  A prospective pilot study of 78 patients in 3 similar private cosmetic surgery centers undergoing a total of 100 face-lift, rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, and skin rejuvenation procedures. Patients were evaluated at 2 preoperative and 1 postoperative time points and the instruments were analyzed with regard to their test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and responsiveness to change.

Results  All 4 outcomes instruments had excellent reliability, consistency, and validity scores. Test-retest reliability was 0.74 to 0.83 (Pearson correlation coefficients), internal consistency scores were .83 to .88 (Cronbach ), and responsiveness to change was statistically significant for each instrument tested (P.001). In addition, patients experienced significant quality of life improvement, with overall satisfaction increasing on average from 37% to more than 84% after these procedures.

Conclusions  These 4 instruments are reliable and valid and can be used to accurately assess patient-related satisfaction in studies of face-lift, rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, and skin resurfacing outcomes. These brief questionnaires provide the cosmetic surgeon with quantitative tools to evaluate otherwise subjective and purely qualitative outcomes and are recommended for use in future prospective studies.

From the Hedgewood Surgical Center, New Orleans, La (Drs Alsarraf and Johnson); the Larrabee Center for Facial Plastic Surgery, Seattle, Wash (Dr Larrabee and Ms Anderson); and the Division of Facial Plastic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle (Dr Murakami). Dr Alsarraf is now with The Newbury Center, Cosmetic Facial Plastic Surgery, Boston, Mass.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Absorbable Suture Compared With Nonabsorbable Suture in Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty Closure
Jaggi et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009;11:349-352.
FULL TEXT  

Outcome Measures in Facial Plastic Surgery: Patient-Reported and Clinical Efficacy Measures
Rhee and McMullin
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:194-207.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Impact of Cosmetic Facial Surgery on Satisfaction With Appearance and Quality of Life
Litner et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:79-83.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

More Science--Please
Larrabee
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:8-8.
FULL TEXT