Exploring Quality of Life after Facial Aesthetic Surgery: Case Study

This case study analysis report investigates the impact of facial aesthetic surgery on patient quality of life (QoL). It begins by defining facial aesthetic surgery and its various procedures, highlighting the growing trend and importance of QoL as an outcome measure since morbidity and mortality are not applicable. The report summarizes and compares recent research findings, including a meta-analysis that shows overall improvement in QoL after aesthetic surgeries. It further explores studies focusing on specific procedures like facial lipofilling and facial feminization, as well as the influence of demographic factors on patient satisfaction post-rhinoplasty. The analysis also compares different instruments used to measure QoL and discusses the limitations of existing research, emphasizing the need for future studies to focus on specific population groups and explore the reasons behind demographic variables affecting QoL. Desklib offers a wealth of resources, including past papers and solved assignments, to aid students in their studies.

Case Study Analysis
Report

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................1
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Facial aesthetic surgery comprises of procedures that focus on improvement of facial
appearance of the patient (Cohen and et.al., 2018). There are different types of facial aesthetic
surgery which include rhinoplasty, genioplasty, liposuction etc. (Kappos and et.al., 2017). There
are various reasons that compel people to seek facial aesthetic surgery which may include
dissatisfaction with the facial features, need to camouflage the scars, congenital issues etc.
(Cotofana and Lachman, 2019) However, an important concern to consider is regarding the
quality life of the patient after surgery. The present case study will explore the issue of patient
quality of life after facial aesthetic surgery by summarizing and comparing recent research
findings.
SUMMARY
Quality of life (QoL) is defined as the degree to which health and comfort is experienced
by an individual (Bulut and et.al., 2018). It also includes the extent to which an individual is able
to enjoy and participate in various life events. In aesthetic procedures, QoL is considered to be an
even more important outcome (Wähmann and et.al., 2018). This is because in aesthetic
procedures, the concepts of morbidity and mortality cannot be determined and analysed. Hence,
in order to measure the outcome of the aesthetic procedure, QoL is an important criterion (Nellis
and et.al., 2017). Moreover, the trend of undergoing facial aesthetic procedures is rising which
increasing number of people adopting for these procedures to get the desired facial features
(Kütük and Arıkan, 2019). This makes the issue of patient QoL even more important to be
considered.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dreher and et.al., (2016) conducted a study in which they reviewed the literature and
conducted a meta- analysis on quality of life and aesthetic plastic surgery. The study was
conducted with the purpose of reviewing and evaluating of QoL in aesthetic surgery. The authors
searched electronic databases and identified the studies for the review. A total of 1715 studies
were identified out of which in 16 studies, the method implemented were quantitative analysis.
In 20 other studies, qualitative analysis has been done. It was found that QoL improved after all
aesthetic surgeries. The researchers concluded that in overall aspects, aesthetic plastic surgery
1

increases QoL. The strengths of these findings were that the outcomes reported by the patients
were regarded as an important aspect in determining the impact that aesthetic surgeries have on
QoL of patients.
The review conducted by Allak and Christophel (2015) included the studies that were
carried out quality of life that was specific to a disease in the area of facial aesthetic surgery. As
per the authors, any practitioner performing facial plastic and reconstructive surgery can observe
improvements in the QoL while they interact with the patients. The review also found that the
psychological outcomes of the aesthetic procedures can be improved by developing a better
understanding of the elements that impact patients of the surgeries.
As compared to this, Tepavcevic and et.al., (2016) conducted a study on the ways in
which Facial lipofilling impact the quality of life of the patients. The researchers found that the
improvement in the quality of life post – surgery was statistically significant. However, this was
not found in the case of physical functioning and pain. However, the findings of the review by
Allak and Christophel (2015) suggest that there has been an increase in the body of literature
involving QOL of the patients with the development of the techniques for revision cleft surgery,
facial reanimation and other tailored treatments. As compared to this, the findings of the study
by Tepavcevic (2016) suggest that there is a strong association between advanced social life and
improvement in satisfaction with facial appearance. Thus it was found that facial lipofilling
treatment can significantly improve the level of self confidence and QOL.
As per the study conducted by Morrison and et.al., (2020), the authors analysed the ways
in which facial feminization surgery impacts on the outcomes of quality of life. The findings of
the study were that after achievement of facial feminization, there was improvement in quality of
life. It was also found that there was presence of high satisfaction after the appearance resembled
female gender and aesthetics demonstrated were of good quality. This extraordinary level of
satisfaction was present during the first one month and was found to be stable for more than 6
months.
Niehaus and et.al. (2017) conducted a research on quality of life changes that follow
Rhinoplasty. The authors collected data about 90 patients who underwent rhinoplasty.
Standardized equipment such as Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), Freiburg Personality
Inventory and Rosenberg self- esteem questionnaire (RSES) were utilized. The results obtained
from GBI suggested an enhancement of the life quality following rhinoplasty.
2

A descriptive study was carried out by Yildiz and Selimen (2015) with the purpose to
determine the ways in which facial aesthetic surgeries impact on QoL. The study included 91
patients. Of these, the patients who underwent aesthetic surgery were 43. Also, 48 patients were
those, who had reconstructive surgery. Short form (SF)- 36 QoL scale, patient information form
and body cathexis scale (BCS) were used for collecting data which was analysed by using Stata:
Data Analysis and Statistical Software. In contrast to this, Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) conducted
a study that determined the type of demographic differences that are present and the ways in
which they impacted the improvement in quality of life as was perceived by the patients after
rhinoplasty. The purpose of the study was to identify the ways in which one can predict the
differences that exist in satisfaction obtained from life quality as well as appearance after
rhinoplasty. This was done with the help of can be independent demographic predictors by using
FACE-Q. It is an instrument that helps in measuring the outcomes reported by the patients.
In contrast to the body cathexis scale that was used by Yildiz and Selimen (2015), the
study by Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) made 59 patients complete FACE- Q scales. The higher
scores of FACE- Q were considered to indicate that the satisfaction level is higher and life
quality is superior. After considering the perspective of various patient demographics, the scores
were compared before and after surgery. It can be analysed that while FACE- Q scale comprises
of more than 40 scales and checklists, body cathexis scale is used as an instrument t measure an
individual’s feelings towards his or her body (van der Lei and Bouman, 2018). Hence, it can be
regarded as a more suitable instrument that suits the purpose of the current topic.
The main findings of the study by Yildiz and Selimen (2015) showed that significant
differences were present between before and after surgery. This was found to be in the both
groups with regards to body cathexis scale and life quality. The p value found for both was p <
0.05 for both. The findings suggested that patients encountered problems related to perception of
body image. Also, the quality of life was fund to be of a poorer level in the patients undergoing
both aesthetic and constructive surgery. However, the authors in the study found that after
surgery, there was decrease in the problems and improvement was observed in the life quality.
It was found that the average scores of social functioning, functioning of emotional role
and physical role were low before the surgery which we later improved after the surgery. Hence,
from the study the authors concluded that the body image perceptions of the patients were
3

significantly improved by the facial aesthetic surgical interventions. The facial aesthetic surgery
also improved self – esteem of the patients. Further, enhancement in the social, mental and
emotional aspects not only enhanced the confidence of the patients but also improved the quality
of life of the patient.
As compared to this, the main findings of the study by Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) study
were that there were statistically significant improvements in life quality and level of satisfaction
in women with regards to the appearance of their face, as compared to men who only
experienced improvement in facial appearance. Significant improvement in quality of life was
demonstrated by Caucasians as compared to the nan- Caucasians. Moreover, enhanced
satisfaction with the QoL was found in patients whose age was less than 35 years as compared to
the patients who were above this age.
The strengths of the findings of the study by Yildiz and Selimen (2015) were that these
provided information on an important aspect related to facial aesthetic surgery. Quality of life is
regarded as an important aspect concerning the patient. It assists in determining the outcome of
the facial aesthetic surgery. The findings enable the researchers to gauge the outcomes of the
facial aesthetic surgery. This makes them valuable and important. as compared to this, the
strengths of the findings of the study by Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) is that they depict the ways
in which demographic variables potentially predict differences in patient satisfaction after
rhinoplasty and also affect their quality of life. The findings are valuable as they denote that
demographic variables affect the life quality of patients after facial aesthetic surgery.
Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) concluded that they succeeded in measuring and quantifying
various differences that occurred in quality of life. They also measured the changes that were
found in the perception that patients had regarding their appearance. This was on the basis of
demographic variables that are gained by the patients who underwent rhinoplasty. The
limitations of the study are that it is limited to the experiences of only one surgeon in only one
single area of surgical practice. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to a larger
population. Furthermore, in the study, it was not compulsory for all rhinoplasty patients to
complete the FACE- Q. This may have had impact on the results. However, the limitation of the
study conducted by Yildiz and Selimen (2015) was that only one aspect of aesthetic, namely,
facial surgery was considered in it.
4

Hence, the study by Schwitzer and et.al. (2015) and Yildiz and Selimen (2015) were similar as
they both explored the impact on quality of life. However, the studies were different on the basis
of the instruments that were used for analyzing the impact on quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Future implications and recommendations for the research suggest that future studies in
the field of aesthetic surgery and its impact on quality of life can be directed towards specific
population groups. Studies can also be carried out to determine the reasons behind the impact of
demographic variable on quality of life post aesthetic surgery. This would include the reasons
behind the differences in the QoL in men and women post aesthetic surgery of the face. Studies
can also be carried out on the comparison of quality of life after different facial surgeries
specifically. In order to resolve this issue, it needs to be explored as to which factors impact the
QoL of patients who have undergone facial aesthetic surgery. The authors can also explore and
rank the factors in the order of highest impact to lowest impact on QoL.
5

REFERENCES
Journals
Allak, A. and Christophel, J., 2015. Update in disease-specific quality-of-life studies in facial
plastic surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 23(4). Pp.281-5.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26101872/
Bulut, O.C. and et.al., 2018. Long-term quality of life changes after primary
septorhinoplasty. Quality of Life Research. 27(4). pp.987-991.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29204784/
Cohen, M.B. and et.al., 2018. Patient satisfaction after aesthetic chondrolaryngoplasty. Plastic
and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 6(10).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30534483/
Cotofana, S. and Lachman, N., 2019. Anatomy of the facial fat compartments and their relevance
in aesthetic surgery. JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen
Gesellschaft. 17(4). pp.399-413.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30698919/
Dreher, R. and et.al., 2016. Quality of Life and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 4(9). p e862.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5054993/
Kappos, E.A. and et.al., 2017. Validating facial aesthetic surgery results with the FACE-
Q. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 139(4). pp.839-845.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28002252/
Kütük, S.G. and Arıkan, O.K., 2019. Evaluation of the effects of open and closed rhinoplasty on
the psychosocial stress level and quality of life of rhinoplasty patients. Journal of Plastic,
Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 72(8). pp.1347-1354.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31078414/
Morrison, S.D. and et.al., 2020. Prospective quality-of-life outcomes after facial feminization
surgery: an international multicenter study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 145(6).
pp.1499-1509.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32459779/
Nellis, J.C. and et.al., 2017. Association among facial paralysis, depression, and quality of life in
facial plastic surgery patients. JAMA facial plastic surgery. 19(3). pp.190-196.
6

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27930763/
Niehaus, R. and et.al., 2017. Quality of life—changes after rhinoplasty. Facial Plastic
Surgery. 33(05). pp.530-536.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28962060/
Schwitzer, J. A. and et.al. 2015. Assessing Demographic Differences in Patient-Perceived
Improvement in Facial Appearance and Quality of Life Following Rhinoplasty. Aesthet
Surg J. 35(7). Pp.784–793.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26063837/
Tepavcevic, B. and et.al., 2016. The Impact of Facial Lipofilling on Patient-Perceived
Improvement in Facial Appearance and Quality of Life. Facial Plast Surg. 32(3). Pp.296-
303.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27248028/
van der Lei, B. and Bouman, T., 2018. Validating Facial Aesthetic Surgery Results with the
FACE-Q. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 141(1). pp.184e-185e.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28938358/
Wähmann, M.S. and et.al., 2018. Systematic review of quality-of-life measurement after
aesthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 42(6). pp.1635-1647.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30019242/
Yildiz,T. and Selimen, D., 2015. The Impact of Facial Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgeries on
Patients’ Quality of Life. Indian J Surg. 77(3). Pp.831–836.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4775615/
7