Matthew Ka Ki Li1, Navin Niles1, Sinclair Gore2,3, Ardalan Ebrahimi4,5, John McGuinness4, Jonathan Robert Clark3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, New South Wales University Medical School and Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Sydney Head and Neck Cancer Institute, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are many patient-based and clinician-based scales measuring the severity of facial nerve paralysis and the impact on quality of life, however, the social perception of facial palsy has received little attention. The purpose of this pilot study was to measure the consequences of facial paralysis on selected domains of social perception and compare the social impact of paralysis of the different components. METHOD: Four patients with typical facial palsies (global, marginal mandibular, zygomatic/buccal, and frontal) and 1 control were photographed. These images were each shown to 100 participants who subsequently rated variables of normality, perceived distress, trustworthiness, intelligence, interaction, symmetry, and disability. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results among each palsy. RESULTS: Paralyzed faces were considered less normal compared to the control on a scale of 0 to 10 (mean, 8.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.30-8.86) with global paralysis (mean, 3.4; 95% CI = 3.08-3.80) rated as the most disfiguring, followed by the zygomatic/buccal (mean, 6.0; 95% CI = 5.68-6.37), marginal (mean, 6.5; 95% CI = 6.08-6.86), and then temporal palsies (mean, 6.9; 95% CI = 6.57-7.21). Similar trends were seen when analyzing these palsies for perceived distress, intelligence, and trustworthiness, using a random effects regression model. CONCLUSION: Our sample suggests that society views paralyzed faces as less normal, less trustworthy, and more distressed. Different components of facial paralysis are worse than others and surgical correction may need to be prioritized in an evidence-based manner with social morbidity in mind.
BACKGROUND: There are many patient-based and clinician-based scales measuring the severity of facial nerve paralysis and the impact on quality of life, however, the social perception of facial palsy has received little attention. The purpose of this pilot study was to measure the consequences of facial paralysis on selected domains of social perception and compare the social impact of paralysis of the different components. METHOD: Four patients with typical facial palsies (global, marginal mandibular, zygomatic/buccal, and frontal) and 1 control were photographed. These images were each shown to 100 participants who subsequently rated variables of normality, perceived distress, trustworthiness, intelligence, interaction, symmetry, and disability. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results among each palsy. RESULTS: Paralyzed faces were considered less normal compared to the control on a scale of 0 to 10 (mean, 8.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.30-8.86) with global paralysis (mean, 3.4; 95% CI = 3.08-3.80) rated as the most disfiguring, followed by the zygomatic/buccal (mean, 6.0; 95% CI = 5.68-6.37), marginal (mean, 6.5; 95% CI = 6.08-6.86), and then temporal palsies (mean, 6.9; 95% CI = 6.57-7.21). Similar trends were seen when analyzing these palsies for perceived distress, intelligence, and trustworthiness, using a random effects regression model. CONCLUSION: Our sample suggests that society views paralyzed faces as less normal, less trustworthy, and more distressed. Different components of facial paralysis are worse than others and surgical correction may need to be prioritized in an evidence-based manner with social morbidity in mind.
Authors: Wenjin Wang; Yizuo Cai; Carlo M Oranges; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Dirk J Schaefer; Chuan Yang; Wei Li Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Andreas Kehrer; Marc Ruewe; Natascha Platz Batista da Silva; Daniel Lonic; Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger; Samuel Knoedler; Ernst Michael Jung; Lukas Prantl; Leonard Knoedler Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-07
Authors: Martinus M van Veen; Joana Tavares-Brito; Britt M van Veen; Joseph R Dusseldorp; Paul M N Werker; Pieter U Dijkstra; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Mina Kheirkhah; Stefan Brodoehl; Lutz Leistritz; Theresa Götz; Philipp Baumbach; Ralph Huonker; Otto W Witte; Gerd Fabian Volk; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Carsten M Klingner Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2020-03-04