PURPOSE: This study analysed the aesthetic outcome assessments after trigonocephaly correction using different assessor groups. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (9 males, 15 females) with a surgical age between 8 and 10 months were included. Standardised photographs showing different facial views of the patients between ages 3 and 6 years were evaluated in terms of aesthetics by three study groups: surgeons, medical students, and lay persons. Each photograph was scored as follows: 1 (normal), 2 (acceptable, no need for revision), or 3 (unacceptable, needs revision). RESULTS: The mean surgical age was 9.1 ±0.4 months. Based on the en-face images, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.4 ±0.49, 1.25 ±0.44, and 1.13 ±0.34, respectively. Based on the patients' profiles, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.37 ±0.49, 1.16 ±0.37, and 1.09 ±0.29, respectively. The scores of the hemi-profile evaluation were 1.14 ±0.35, 1.07 ±0.26, and 1.09 ±0.31, respectively. The scores of the frontal region were 1.47 ±0.54, 1.33 ±0.49, and 1.39 ±0.49, respectively. Within the orbital area, the surgeon, student, and lay groups assigned mean scores of 1.53 ±0.56, 1.29 ±0.46, and 1.15 ±0.36, respectively. The midface analysis showed mean scores of 1.8 ±0.66, 1.63 ±0.52, and 1.46 ±0.5, respectively. In all areas, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) among the assessor groups. CONCLUSION: The expectations regarding aesthetic outcome differ considerably between experts and non-experts. The need for correction did not concern the reshaped bone but rather the soft tissue epicanthal area.
PURPOSE: This study analysed the aesthetic outcome assessments after trigonocephaly correction using different assessor groups. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (9 males, 15 females) with a surgical age between 8 and 10 months were included. Standardised photographs showing different facial views of the patients between ages 3 and 6 years were evaluated in terms of aesthetics by three study groups: surgeons, medical students, and lay persons. Each photograph was scored as follows: 1 (normal), 2 (acceptable, no need for revision), or 3 (unacceptable, needs revision). RESULTS: The mean surgical age was 9.1 ±0.4 months. Based on the en-face images, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.4 ±0.49, 1.25 ±0.44, and 1.13 ±0.34, respectively. Based on the patients' profiles, the mean scores assigned by the surgeon, student, and lay groups were 1.37 ±0.49, 1.16 ±0.37, and 1.09 ±0.29, respectively. The scores of the hemi-profile evaluation were 1.14 ±0.35, 1.07 ±0.26, and 1.09 ±0.31, respectively. The scores of the frontal region were 1.47 ±0.54, 1.33 ±0.49, and 1.39 ±0.49, respectively. Within the orbital area, the surgeon, student, and lay groups assigned mean scores of 1.53 ±0.56, 1.29 ±0.46, and 1.15 ±0.36, respectively. The midface analysis showed mean scores of 1.8 ±0.66, 1.63 ±0.52, and 1.46 ±0.5, respectively. In all areas, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) among the assessor groups. CONCLUSION: The expectations regarding aesthetic outcome differ considerably between experts and non-experts. The need for correction did not concern the reshaped bone but rather the soft tissue epicanthal area.
Authors: Philipp Metzler; Wolfgang Zemann; Christine Jacobsen; Klaus Wilhelm Grätz; Joachim Anton Obwegeser Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Amy E Merrill; Elena G Bochukova; Sean M Brugger; Mamoru Ishii; Daniela T Pilz; Steven A Wall; Karen M Lyons; Andrew O M Wilkie; Robert E Maxson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 6.150