Andrew W Joseph1, Lisa Ishii1, Shannon S Joseph2, Jane I Smith2, Peiyi Su1, Kristin Bater1, Patrick Byrne1, Kofi Boahene1, Ira Papel3, Theda Kontis3, Raymond Douglas2, Christine C Nelson2, Masaru Ishii4. 1. Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Division of Oculoplastic Surgery, Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland4Facial Plastic Surgicenter, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a relative contraindication for facial plastic surgery, but formal screening is not common in practice. The prevalence of BDD in patients seeking facial plastic surgery is not well documented. OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of BDD across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings, and estimate the ability of surgeons to screen for BDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter prospective study recruited a cohort of 597 patients who presented to academic and private facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practices from March 2015 to February 2016. METHODS: All patients were screened for BDD using the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire (BDDQ). After each clinical encounter, surgeons independently evaluated the likelihood that a participating patient had BDD. Validated instruments were used to assess satisfaction with facial appearance including the FACE-Q, Blepharoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (BOE), Facelift Outcomes Evaluation (FOE), Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE), and Skin Rejuvenation Outcomes Evaluation (SROE). RESULTS: Across participating practices (9 surgeons, 3 sites), a total of 597 patients were screened for BDD: 342 patients from site 1 (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [16.5] years); 158 patients, site 2 (mean [SD] age, 46.0 [16.2] years), site 3, 97 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.3 [15.5] years). Overall, 58 patients [9.7%] screened positive for BDD by the BDDQ instrument, while only 16 of 402 patients [4.0%] were clinically suspected of BDD by surgeons. A higher percentage of patients presenting for cosmetic surgery (37 of 283 patients [13.1%]) compared with those presenting for reconstructive surgery (21 of 314 patients [6.7%]) screened positive on the BDDQ (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.20-3.68; P = .01). Surgeons were only able to correctly identify 2 of 43 patients (4.7%) who screened positive for BDD on the BDDQ, and the positive likelihood ratio was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.28-5.07). Patients screening positive for BDD by the BDDQ had lower satisfaction with their appearance as measured by the FACE-Q, ROE, BOE, SROE, and FOE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Body dysmorphic disorder is a relatively common condition across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings. Patients who screen positive on the BDDQ have lower satisfaction with their facial appearance at baseline. Surgeons have a poor ability to screen for patients with BDD when compared with validated screening instruments such as the BDDQ. Routine implementation of validated BDD screening instruments may improve patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
IMPORTANCE: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a relative contraindication for facial plastic surgery, but formal screening is not common in practice. The prevalence of BDD in patients seeking facial plastic surgery is not well documented. OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of BDD across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings, and estimate the ability of surgeons to screen for BDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter prospective study recruited a cohort of 597 patients who presented to academic and private facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practices from March 2015 to February 2016. METHODS: All patients were screened for BDD using the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire (BDDQ). After each clinical encounter, surgeons independently evaluated the likelihood that a participating patient had BDD. Validated instruments were used to assess satisfaction with facial appearance including the FACE-Q, Blepharoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (BOE), Facelift Outcomes Evaluation (FOE), Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE), and Skin Rejuvenation Outcomes Evaluation (SROE). RESULTS: Across participating practices (9 surgeons, 3 sites), a total of 597 patients were screened for BDD: 342 patients from site 1 (mean [SD] age, 44.2 [16.5] years); 158 patients, site 2 (mean [SD] age, 46.0 [16.2] years), site 3, 97 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.3 [15.5] years). Overall, 58 patients [9.7%] screened positive for BDD by the BDDQ instrument, while only 16 of 402 patients [4.0%] were clinically suspected of BDD by surgeons. A higher percentage of patients presenting for cosmetic surgery (37 of 283 patients [13.1%]) compared with those presenting for reconstructive surgery (21 of 314 patients [6.7%]) screened positive on the BDDQ (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.20-3.68; P = .01). Surgeons were only able to correctly identify 2 of 43 patients (4.7%) who screened positive for BDD on the BDDQ, and the positive likelihood ratio was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.28-5.07). Patients screening positive for BDD by the BDDQ had lower satisfaction with their appearance as measured by the FACE-Q, ROE, BOE, SROE, and FOE. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Body dysmorphic disorder is a relatively common condition across facial plastic and oculoplastic surgery practice settings. Patients who screen positive on the BDDQ have lower satisfaction with their facial appearance at baseline. Surgeons have a poor ability to screen for patients with BDD when compared with validated screening instruments such as the BDDQ. Routine implementation of validated BDD screening instruments may improve patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
Authors: Maarten J Ottenhof; Inge J Veldhuizen; Lusanne J V Hensbergen; Louise L Blankensteijn; Wichor Bramer; Berend Vd Lei; Maarten M Hoogbergen; René R W J Hulst; Chris J Sidey-Gibbons Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.326