FACE-Q Patient Report-Assisted Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Blepharoplasty Outcomes Using Two Different Suturing Techniques: A Randomized and Patient-Blinded Pilot Study

Abstract

Background/ObjectivesTo compare two suturing techniques in patients undergoing upper eyelid blepharoplasty by using the FACE-Q™ Eye Module questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcomes and by blinded Likert-scale gradings of two experienced surgeons.Methods90 patients undergoing bilateral blepharoplasty were randomly assigned to a suturing technique (running cutaneous or subcuticular closure) using Prolene 6.0. Patients completed the FACE-Q eye module questionnaire before surgery and 7 days and 3 months after surgery. Further, two trained oculoplastic surgeons assessed the outcome. FACE-Q ratings were RASCH-transformed, and linear models were fitted for appraisal and satisfaction results. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the surgeons’ rating agreement.ResultsThere was no statistically significantly difference in patients’ FACE-Q self-assessments regarding satisfaction with eyes and appraisal of upper eyelids between the two suturing techniques investigated, both 7 days and 3 months after blepharoplasty. The more content the patient at baseline, the less the increase in satisfaction after 3 months. There was good agreement between blinded graders in outcome assessment expressed by an ICC of 0.86. Dry-eye symptoms increased after surgery, independent of the suturing technique, patient age or sex.ConclusionIn conclusion, this study shows that post operative patient satisfaction is independent of suturing technique, but depends on baseline FACE-Q reports. These findings are valuable in patient communication and selection and are in line with observer-based assessments.Level of Evidence IIIThis 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 http://www.springer.com/00266.