Evaluating the Satisfaction of Patients Undergoing Hair Transplantation Surgery Using the FACE-Q Scales.

BACKGROUND

It is necessary to evaluate a successful cosmetic procedure from the patients' perspective. FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome scale for patients undergoing cosmetic procedures. However, currently there are no FACE-Q scales used in the field of hair transplant surgery. This article aims to apply FACE-Q scales to evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing hair transplantation surgery.

METHODS

FACE-Q scales were modified to contain both preoperative and 6-month postoperative self-assessment, including baseline preoperative information of patients (such as age, family history of alopecia, Hamilton' alopecia grade),preoperative self-assessment (satisfaction with appearance, the preoperative visual age, expected visual age) and postoperative self-assessment (satisfaction with appearance, postoperative visual age, satisfaction with decision, psychological well-being and social function). Besides, early life impact and recovery early symptoms were also re-evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean difference between the 6-month satisfaction with appearance and baseline scores showed a significant increase of 29.62 (baseline, 46.97; 6-month, 76.59; P < 0.001) and patients perceived they appeared 5.81 years younger after surgery (P < 0.001). Postoperative satisfaction with appearance has no significant relevance with gender (P = 0.460), age (P = 0.529), marriage (P = 0.811) or family history of alopecia (P = 0.641). However, income (P = 0.003), educational level (P = 0.003), the purpose of hair transplantation (P = 0.018) and early life impact (P = 0.002) were shown to have a significant impact on satisfaction with appearance.

CONCLUSIONS

The FACE-Q scales are a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome tool for patients undergoing hair transplantation and can be widely used to evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing such surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .