Anne F Klassen1, Stefan J Cano2, Charles A East3, Stephen B Baker4, Lydia Badia5, Jonathan A Schwitzer6, Andrea L Pusic7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. Modus Outcomes, Stotfold, England. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Craniofacial Surgery, University College London Hospitals, London, England. 4. Department of Plastic Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. 5. Rhinoplasty London, London, England. 6. Department of Plastic Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC6Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Rhinoplasty continues to rank among the most popular cosmetic surgical treatments. Measuring what the nose looks like has typically involved the use of observer-reported or physician-reported outcome measures (eg, photographs). While objective outcomes are important, facial appearance is subjective, and asking patients what they think about the appearance of their nose is of paramount importance. The patient perspective can be measured using patient-reported outcome instruments. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist designed to measure rhinoplasty outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire was completed by patients recruited between July 13, 2010, and March 1, 2015. Psychometric methods were used to select the most clinically sensitive items for inclusion in item-reduced scales as well as to examine reliability, validity, and ability to detect clinical change. The setting was plastic surgery clinics in the United States, England, and Canada. Participants were preoperative and postoperative patients 18 years or older undergoing rhinoplasty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Responses and validation measures of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist. RESULTS: In total, 158 of 169 patients invited to participate in the study were enrolled (response rate, 93.5%). The most common adverse effect was the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen. Rasch measurement theory analysis led to the refinement of a 10-item Satisfaction With Nose Scale and a 5-item Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. The person separation index and Cronbach α were 0.91 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and 0.89 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. All items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Satisfaction with the nose and nostrils was incrementally lower in participants bothered by specific adverse effects (eg, the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen). Patient satisfaction on the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale and on 3 additional FACE-Q scales (ie, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, Psychological Function Scale, and Social Function Scale) was higher after surgery than before surgery (P < .001 for all, independent samples t test). Twenty-three participants who provided preoperative and postoperative data reported improvement on all 5 scales (P ≤ .003 for all). The effect sizes ranged from 0.6 to 2.3. Significant individual-level change was reported by most participants for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale, Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, and Social Function Scale. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A FACE-Q scales rhinoplasty module can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to incorporate the patient perspective in outcome assessments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
IMPORTANCE: Rhinoplasty continues to rank among the most popular cosmetic surgical treatments. Measuring what the nose looks like has typically involved the use of observer-reported or physician-reported outcome measures (eg, photographs). While objective outcomes are important, facial appearance is subjective, and asking patients what they think about the appearance of their nose is of paramount importance. The patient perspective can be measured using patient-reported outcome instruments. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist designed to measure rhinoplasty outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire was completed by patients recruited between July 13, 2010, and March 1, 2015. Psychometric methods were used to select the most clinically sensitive items for inclusion in item-reduced scales as well as to examine reliability, validity, and ability to detect clinical change. The setting was plastic surgery clinics in the United States, England, and Canada. Participants were preoperative and postoperative patients 18 years or older undergoing rhinoplasty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Responses and validation measures of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist. RESULTS: In total, 158 of 169 patients invited to participate in the study were enrolled (response rate, 93.5%). The most common adverse effect was the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen. Rasch measurement theory analysis led to the refinement of a 10-item Satisfaction With Nose Scale and a 5-item Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. The person separation index and Cronbach α were 0.91 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and 0.89 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. All items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Satisfaction with the nose and nostrils was incrementally lower in participants bothered by specific adverse effects (eg, the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen). Patient satisfaction on the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale and on 3 additional FACE-Q scales (ie, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, Psychological Function Scale, and Social Function Scale) was higher after surgery than before surgery (P < .001 for all, independent samples t test). Twenty-three participants who provided preoperative and postoperative data reported improvement on all 5 scales (P ≤ .003 for all). The effect sizes ranged from 0.6 to 2.3. Significant individual-level change was reported by most participants for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale, Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, and Social Function Scale. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A FACE-Q scales rhinoplasty module can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to incorporate the patient perspective in outcome assessments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Jonathan A Schwitzer; Amie M Scott; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: M Barone; A Cogliandro; N Di Stefano; R Aronica; V Tambone; P Persichetti Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Olcay Cem Bulut; Frank Wallner; Dare Oladokun; Claire Kayser; Michaela Plath; Eric Schulz; Peter Karl Plinkert; Ingo Baumann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Jonathan A Schwitzer; Stephen B Baker; Alastair Carruthers; Jean Carruthers; Anne Chapas; Andrea L Pusic Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Amy Alderman; Charles East; Lydia Badia; Stephen B Baker; Sam Robson; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Alisa Zhukhovitskaya; Dalan Cragun; Erica Su; Christian H Barnes; Brian J F Wong Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Christian H Barnes; Heidi Chen; Jason J Chen; Erica Su; Wesley J Moy; Brian J F Wong Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.611