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

BACKGROUND: /Objectives To 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. METHODS: 90 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. RESULTS: There 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. CONCLUSION: In 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 III: 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 http://www.springer.com/00266. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00266-023-03339-6.