Look Better, Feel Better, Live Better? The Impact of Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Procedures on Satisfaction with Appearance and Psychosocial Wellbeing

Lauren Hoffman; Sabrina Fabi

Look Better, Feel Better, Live Better? The Impact of Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Procedures on Satisfaction with Appearance and Psychosocial Wellbeing

J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 May;15(5):47-58.

Authors

Lauren Hoffman¹, Sabrina Fabi²

Affiliations

¹ Dr. Hoffman is with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Medicine and the Division of Dermatology in Bronx, New York.
² Dr. Fabi is with the University of California, San Diego and Cosmetic Laser Dermatology in San Diego, California.

PMID: 35642226
PMCID: PMC9122280

Abstract

Background: Patients pursue cosmetic procedures to improve physical appearance as well as self-esteem and confidence, which translates into better quality of life. As aesthetic providers, it is important to understand the improvement in quality of life that can be achieved from various aesthetic procedures, best measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs), such as the validated FACE-Q.

Objective: This review summarizes FACE-Q outcomes after nonsurgical dermatological facial cosmetic procedures.

Methods: A review of relevant clinical terms was performed on the PUBMED database. All abstracts were reviewed; articles were included based on relevancy; bibliographies of selected articles were reviewed; and supplemental articles were added accordingly.

Results: The current literature has 31 articles using the FACE-Q to measure quality of life, focusing on satisfaction with appearance, psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, age appraisal, and recovery early life impact (i.e. disruption of the procedure on daily life activities) after minimally invasive aesthetic facial procedures. Clinical studies focused on treatment with dermal fillers for mid-face rejuvenation, chin/lower-face enhancement, lip enhancement, botulinum toxin-A for glabellar lines, combined filler and botulinum toxin-A, and other. Nearly all FACE-Q domains improved following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Absolute changes in FACE-Q psychological wellbeing and age appraisal were greatest with combined treatments compared to single treatments.

Limitations: Limitations included varying follow-up times, lack of control groups, and publication bias for positive findings.

Conclusion: To maximize patient satisfaction and retention, providers should consider a combined treatment approach, to improve patient psychological wellbeing and age appraisal, and ultimately quality of life.

Keywords: Aesthetic dermatology; FACE-Q; cosmetic dermatology; minimally invasive; patient reported outcomes; psychosocial impact; quality of life.

Publication types

Review