Caroline A Banks1, Nate Jowett1, Tessa A Hadlock1. 1. Facial Nerve Center, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Use of a robust high-resolution instrument for grading of facial symmetry would enhance reporting the outcomes of facial reanimation interventions. The eFACE is one such tool. OBJECTIVE: To determine test-retest reliability of the eFACE tool over time and agreement between eFACE assessments made in person vs those made using video of facial mimetic function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was conducted among 75 consecutive patients with varying degrees of facial palsy who presented between July 1 and December 31, 2014, to an academic tertiary referral hospital. Facial symmetry of all patients was graded in person and via standardized photographic and video documentation of facial mimetic function at the initial visit. Three months after initial presentation, eFACE scores were reassessed by the same raters using the videos of facial mimetic function documented at the initial visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Individual and subset eFACE scores assessed by 2 facial reanimation surgeons. RESULTS: Among the 75 patients in the study (mean [SD] age, 48.18 [16.60] years; 30 men and 45 women), agreement between in-person and video assessments of facial function using the eFACE scale was excellent (static subset score: mean difference, 0.19; 95% CI, -1.51 to 1.88; P = .83; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89; dynamic subset score: mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.72 to 0.71; P = .41; ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.97; synkinesis subset score: mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -2.87 to 0.59; P = .20; ICC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93; and composite score: mean difference, -0.41; 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.47; P = .36; ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96). Agreement between repeated eFACE assessments of video of facial function was excellent (static subset score: ICC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96; dynamic subset score: ICC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94; synkinesis subset score: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96; and composite score: ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Strong agreement exists between eFACE scores of facial function assessed in person and from video recordings. Test-retest reliability of eFACE scores is high. The eFACE is a reliable instrument for high-resolution assessment of facial mimetic function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
IMPORTANCE: Use of a robust high-resolution instrument for grading of facial symmetry would enhance reporting the outcomes of facial reanimation interventions. The eFACE is one such tool. OBJECTIVE: To determine test-retest reliability of the eFACE tool over time and agreement between eFACE assessments made in person vs those made using video of facial mimetic function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective observational study was conducted among 75 consecutive patients with varying degrees of facial palsy who presented between July 1 and December 31, 2014, to an academic tertiary referral hospital. Facial symmetry of all patients was graded in person and via standardized photographic and video documentation of facial mimetic function at the initial visit. Three months after initial presentation, eFACE scores were reassessed by the same raters using the videos of facial mimetic function documented at the initial visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Individual and subset eFACE scores assessed by 2 facial reanimation surgeons. RESULTS: Among the 75 patients in the study (mean [SD] age, 48.18 [16.60] years; 30 men and 45 women), agreement between in-person and video assessments of facial function using the eFACE scale was excellent (static subset score: mean difference, 0.19; 95% CI, -1.51 to 1.88; P = .83; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89; dynamic subset score: mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.72 to 0.71; P = .41; ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.97; synkinesis subset score: mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -2.87 to 0.59; P = .20; ICC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93; and composite score: mean difference, -0.41; 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.47; P = .36; ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96). Agreement between repeated eFACE assessments of video of facial function was excellent (static subset score: ICC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96; dynamic subset score: ICC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94; synkinesis subset score: ICC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96; and composite score: ICC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Strong agreement exists between eFACE scores of facial function assessed in person and from video recordings. Test-retest reliability of eFACE scores is high. The eFACE is a reliable instrument for high-resolution assessment of facial mimetic function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
Authors: J Alexander de Ru; Weibel W Braunius; Peter Paul G van Benthem; Wim B Busschers; Gerrit Jan Hordijk Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Caroline A Banks; Prabhat K Bhama; Jong Park; Charles R Hadlock; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Adel Y Fattah; Javier Gavilan; Tessa A Hadlock; Jeffrey R Marcus; Henri Marres; Charles Nduka; William H Slattery; Alison K Snyder-Warwick Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Aurora G Vincent; Scott E Bevans; Jon M Robitschek; Gary G Wind; Marc H Hohman Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Daniel P Butler; Alethse De la Torre; Gregory H Borschel; Tessa A Hadlock; Carien Beurskens; Kathleen Bogart; Alexander Cárdenas Mejía; Christopher Coombs; Jocelyne Copeland; Jacqueline Diels; Teresa González-Otero; Louise Graham; Lisa Ishii; Raman Malhotra; Adelaida Martinez; Lisa McKinley; Mara W Robinson; Sinikka Suominen; Akihiko Takushima; Evangelina Vazquez Curiel; Faye L Wachs; Adriaan O Grobbelaar Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Petar Stankovic; Jan Wittlinger; Robert Georgiew; Nina Dominas; Katrin Reimann; Stephan Hoch; Thomas Wilhelm; Thomas Günzel Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.503
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: Martinus M van Veen; Tessa E Bruins; Madina Artan; Paul M N Werker; Pieter U Dijkstra Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 2.597