Patient Satisfaction and Early Outcomes Following Mini-Facelift Procedures in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Modified FACE-Q Evaluation

  • Dr. Nandhini
  • Dr. Saravana kumar
  • Dr. Vijay Ebenezer
Keywords: Mini-facelift, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS), Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), FACE-Q, Jaw Stiffness

Abstract

The rising demand for facial aesthetic enhancements has made the mini-facelift a popular, less invasive choice compared to traditional rhytidectomy. Within oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), these procedures are increasingly used to address signs of facial aging. Despite their growing popularity, there's a clear lack of comprehensive data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), especially when assessed with validated tools in this specific surgical context. This prospective cross-sectional study aimed to fill this gap by evaluating patient satisfaction and early complications after mini-facelifts, using a modified FACE-Q questionnaire tailored for facial aesthetic procedures. The study included 35 female patients, aged 45–55 years, who underwent mini-facelifts at the Department of OMFS, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College. A key part of the methodology involved adapting the FACE-Q to include OMFS-specific considerations, such as dedicated scales for recovery time and a detailed checklist for complications, including jaw stiffness, relevant due to the anatomical proximity in OMFS. Data analysis used descriptive statistics and chi-square tests, with statistical significance set at a p-value of less than 0.05. Results showed compelling insights into patient experiences. A significant 82% of participants reported high satisfaction with their overall appearance, confirming the aesthetic effectiveness of mini-facelifts in this setting. Additionally, 78% were content with their recovery time, suggesting a generally well-tolerated post-operative course. The positive psychological impact was evident, with 85% noting a significant improvement in social confidence. Regarding complications, the most common issues were temporary numbness (34%) and jaw stiffness (12%), both typically mild and manageable. Interestingly, a borderline statistically significant association (p=0.048) suggested that younger patients (45–50 years) reported higher satisfaction. This study strongly suggests that mini-facelifts performed in an OMFS setting are associated with high patient satisfaction and a favorable, manageable complication profile. However, the study's small sample size and single-center design are limitations. These factors highlight the critical need for subsequent larger, multi-center investigations to definitively validate these preliminary findings and comprehensively assess the long-term outcomes and sustained efficacy of these procedures.

Author Biographies

Dr. Nandhini

Post-graduate student Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai.

Dr. Saravana kumar

Professor Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospitals, Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery,

Dr. Vijay Ebenezer

Head of the Department, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sree Balaji Dental College and Hospital, Chennai. 

References

1. Bisaccia, E., Sequeira, M., Magidson, J. G., & Scarborough, D. A. (1998). Surgical intervention for the aging face. Combination of mini-face-lifting and superficial carbon dioxide laser resurfacing.Dermatologic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-4725.1998.TB04258.X
2. Krohner, R. G. (2003). Anesthetic considerations and techniques for oral and maxillofacial surgery.International Anesthesiology Clinics. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004311-200341030-00007
3. Pusic, A. L., Lemaine, V., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., & Cano, S. J. (2011). Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Plastic Surgery: Use and Interpretation in Evidence-Based Medicine.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0B013E3182063276
4. Knoernschild, K. L., & Campbell, S. D. (2019). Making the Best Clinical Decisions for Patients: The Pros-CAT ProtocolTM.Dental Clinics of North America. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CDEN.2018.11.008
5. Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., & Cano, S. J. (2013). Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q satisfaction with appearance scale: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for facial aesthetics patients.Clinics in Plastic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPS.2012.12.001
6. Campo, A. F. del, Gordon, C. B., & Bergman, O. K. (1998). Evolution from Endoscopic to Miniinvasive Facelift: A Logical Progression?Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/S002669900202
7. Sinno S, et al. Face-Lift Satisfaction Using the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(2):239–242.
8. Castro-Govea, Y., De La Garza-Pineda, O., & Salazar-Lozano, A. (2013). Mini–Temporal and Perilobular Approach to Facelift: Mini-TAPA-Facelift.Facial Plastic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0033-1347009
9. Onizuka, T., Hosaka, Y., Miyata, M., & Ichinose, M. (1995). Our mini-facelift for orientals.Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00209311
10. Ifeacho, S. N., Malhi, G. K., & James, G. (2005). Perception by the public and medical profession of oral and maxillofacial surgery—has it changed after 10 years?British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BJOMS.2004.11.026
11. Zaslavskiy, I., Drobyshev, A., Dubinina, T., Erdes, S., & Kuznetsov, A. (2017, June 1).AB0423 Minimally invasive surgical treatment of temporomandibular joint in patients with various rheumatic disorders. https://doi.org/10.1136/ANNRHEUMDIS-2017-EULAR.4562
12. Anastassov, G. E., Lee, H., & Haiavy, J. (2000). Discoplasty with autogenous superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) flap in reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint combined with cervicofacial rhytidectomy.British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1054/BJOM.1999.0297
13. Mitz, V., & Peyronie, M. (1976). The superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (smas) in the parotid and cheek area.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197607000-00013
14. Trussler, A. P., Hatef, D., Broussard, G. B., Brown, S. A., & Barton, F. E. (2011). The viscoelastic properties of the SMAS and its clinical translation: firm support for the high-SMAS rhytidectomy.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0B013E3182221354
15. Lambros, V. (1997). Fat injection for aesthetic facial rejuvenation.Aesthetic Surgery Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-820X(97)80041-6
16. Lukash, F. N. (2017). Commentary on: Safety of Cosmetic Surgery in Adolescent Patients.Aesthetic Surgery Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/ASJ/SJX088
17. Saraçoğlu, K. T., Dal, D., Cerit, K. K., Baygın, Ö., Kir, B., & Bekiroğlu, G. N. (2014). The Factors Affecting Satisfaction Level of Parents Before and After Pediatric Surgery.Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Anesthesiology Reanimation.
18. Abboushi, N., Yezhelyev, M., Symbas, J., & Nahai, F. (2012). Facelift Complications and the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism: A Single Center’s Experience.Aesthetic Surgery Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X12442213
19. Sarwer, D. B., Infield, A. L., Baker, J. L., Casas, L. A., Glat, P. M., Gold, A. H., Jewell, M. L., LaRossa, D., Nahai, F., & Young, V. L. (2008). Two-year results of a prospective, multi-site investigation of patient satisfaction and psychosocial status following cosmetic surgery.Aesthetic Surgery Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASJ.2008.02.003
Published
2023-12-09
How to Cite
Dr. Nandhini, Dr. Saravana kumar, & Dr. Vijay Ebenezer. (2023). Patient Satisfaction and Early Outcomes Following Mini-Facelift Procedures in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Modified FACE-Q Evaluation. Revista Electronica De Veterinaria, 24(4), 698-703. https://doi.org/10.69980/redvet.v24i4.1957
Section
Articles