Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Eyelid Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]
ISSN: 1524-4725
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9504371
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2021
01 07 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
entrez:
14
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Determining which postsurgical scar assessment instruments, if any, cover important eyelid outcome measures can either attest to the strength of one or more instruments or reveal the need for a more comprehensive scale. To systematically review validated outcome measures after eyelid surgery and postsurgical scar assessment tools to see whether any individual or combination of 2 assessment tools encompass all relevant, validated eyelid outcome measures. Systematic reviews of validated eyelid outcome measures and postsurgical scar assessment tools were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid. Outcome measure papers that met inclusion criteria were sorted into 8 categories: Patient Subjective, Visual Function, Mechanical Function, Daily Activities, Adverse Effects, Aesthetic Quantitative: Clinical Measurements, Aesthetic Qualitative: Global, and Aesthetic Qualitative: Specific. Outcome measure papers were categorized into tiers of evidence support, and assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered. No one or combination of 2 assessment tools covered all selected eyelid outcome measures. Although measures related to the subjective patient experience were included in several of the assessment scales, none covered measures of visual function or eyelid-specific clinical measurements. There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all important eyelid-specific outcome measures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Determining which postsurgical scar assessment instruments, if any, cover important eyelid outcome measures can either attest to the strength of one or more instruments or reveal the need for a more comprehensive scale.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review validated outcome measures after eyelid surgery and postsurgical scar assessment tools to see whether any individual or combination of 2 assessment tools encompass all relevant, validated eyelid outcome measures.
METHODS
Systematic reviews of validated eyelid outcome measures and postsurgical scar assessment tools were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid. Outcome measure papers that met inclusion criteria were sorted into 8 categories: Patient Subjective, Visual Function, Mechanical Function, Daily Activities, Adverse Effects, Aesthetic Quantitative: Clinical Measurements, Aesthetic Qualitative: Global, and Aesthetic Qualitative: Specific. Outcome measure papers were categorized into tiers of evidence support, and assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered.
RESULTS
No one or combination of 2 assessment tools covered all selected eyelid outcome measures. Although measures related to the subjective patient experience were included in several of the assessment scales, none covered measures of visual function or eyelid-specific clinical measurements.
CONCLUSION
There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all important eyelid-specific outcome measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33988553
doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000003077
pii: 00042728-202107000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
914-920Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Measuring health IM. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford University Press; 2006.
Pusic AL, Lemaine V, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127:1361–7.
De Vet HCTC, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: a Practical Guide. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Hollander MHJ, Contini M, Pott JW, Vissink A, et al. Functional outcomes of upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2019;72:294–309.
Hollander MHJ, Schortinghuis J, Vissink A, Jansma J, et al. Aesthetic outcomes of upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020;49:750–64.
Study Quality Assessment Tools. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD. Available from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools . Accessed December 12, 2020.
Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, et al. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001;3:198–201.
Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen G, et al. Patient-reported outcome measurement in upper blepharoplasty: how to measure what the patient sees. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71:1346–51.
Battu VK, Meyer DR, Wobig JL. Improvement in subjective visual function and quality of life outcome measures after blepharoptosis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;121:677–86.
Al-Abbadi Z, Sagili S, Malhotra R. Outcomes of posterior-approach 'levatorpexy' in congenital ptosis repair. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:1686–90.
Antus Z, Salam A, Horvath E, Malhotra R. Outcomes for severe aponeurotic ptosis using posterior approach white-line advancement ptosis surgery. Eye (Lond) 2018;32:81–6.
Evans JA, Clark TJE, Zimmerman MB, et al. Rethinking our definition of postoperative success: a comparative analysis of three upper eyelid retraction repair techniques using novel metrics to capture functional and aesthetic outcomes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2018;34:55–63.
Goldberg RA, Lew H. Cosmetic outcome of posterior approach ptosis surgery (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2011;109:157–67.
Ho YF, Wu SY, Tsai YJ. Factors associated with surgical outcomes in congenital ptosis: a 10-year study of 319 cases. Am J Ophthalmol 2017;175:173–82.
Jacobsen AG, Brost B, Vorum H, Hargitai J. Functional benefits and patient satisfaction with upper blepharoplasty—evaluated by objective and subjective outcome measures. Acta Ophthalmol 2017;95:820–5.
Kim JW, Lee H, Chang M, Park M, et al. What causes increased contrast sensitivity and improved functional visual acuity after upper eyelid blepharoplasty?. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:1582–5.
Klein-Theyer A, Horwath-Winter J, Dieter FR, Haller-Schober EM, et al. Evaluation of ocular surface and tear film function following modified Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap procedure. Acta Ophthalmol 2014;92:286–90.
Mahroo OA, Hysi PG, Dey S, Gavin EA, et al. Outcomes of ptosis surgery assessed using a patient-reported outcome measure: an exploration of time effects. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:387–90.
Maqsood SE, Cascone N, Grixti A, Kannan R, et al. Functional and aesthetic outcomes of eyelid skin grafting in facial nerve palsy. Br J Ophthalmol 2018;103:686–691.
Oh LJ, Wong E, Bae S, Tsirbas A. Comparing the outcomes of severe versus mild/moderate ptosis using closed posterior levator advancement. Orbit 2019;38:24–9.
Schulz CB, Nicholson R, Penwarden A, Parkin B. Anterior approach white line advancement: technique and long-term outcomes in the correction of blepharoptosis. Eye (Lond) 2017;31:1716–23.
Sung Y, Park JS, Lew H. Clinical outcomes of frontalis sling using silicone rod with two-point brow incisions in blepharoptosis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2016;53:224–32.
Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, et al. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:615–21.
Papageorgiou KI, Ang M, Chang SH, Kohn J, et al. Aesthetic considerations in upper eyelid retraction surgery. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;28:419–23.
Harris DL, Carr AT. The Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS59): a new psychometric scale for the evaluation of patients with disfigurements and aesthetic problems of appearance. Br J Plast Surg 2001;54:216–22.
Hendry J, Chin A, Swan IR, Akeroyd MA, et al. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory: a systematic review of the use and value of an otorhinolaryngological generic patient-recorded outcome measure. Clin Otolaryngol 2016;41:259–75.
Arita R, Itoh K, Maeda S, et al. Proposed diagnostic criteria for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmology 2009;116:2058–63.e2051.
Mundy LR, Miller HC, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome instruments for surgical and traumatic scars: a systematic review of their development, content, and psychometric validation. Aesthet Plast Surg 2016;40:792–800.
Al Nasser M, Pini G, Gözen AS, et al. Comparative study for evaluating the cosmetic outcome of small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) with standard retroperitoneoscopy using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale: are small incisions a big deal? J Endourol 2014;28:1409–13.
Bianchi FA, Roccia F, Fiorini P, Berrone S. Use of Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale for evaluation of facial scars treated with self-drying silicone gel. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21:719–23.
Brown BC, McKenna SP, Solomon M, Wilburn J, et al. The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1439–49.
Carrière ME, Kwa KAA, de Haas LEM, et al. Systematic review on the content of outcome measurement instruments on scar quality. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2424.
Chae JK, Kim JH, Kim EJ, Park K. Values of a patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the facial skin graft scar. Ann Dermatol 2016;28:615–23.
Chen B, Song H, Gao Q, et al. Measuring satisfaction with appearance: validation of the FACE-Q scales for double-eyelid blepharoplasty with minor incision in young Asians- retrospective study of 200 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70:1129–35.
Corrado G, Calagna G, Cutillo G, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the cosmetic outcomes of the robotic single-site hysterectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018;28:194–9.
Demir B, Binnetoglu A, Mammodova U, Batman C. Scar evaluation in subperiosteal temporal pocket versus the one-layer flap technique in cochlear implantation using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Eur Arch oto-rhino-laryngology 2019;276:2149–54.
Dobbs TD, Gibson JAG, Hughes S, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for soft-tissue facial reconstruction: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143:255–68.
Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;123:1481–9.
Franchignoni F, Giordano A, Vercelli S, Bravini E, et al. Rasch analysis of the patient and observer scar assessment scale in linear scars: suggestions for a patient and observer scar assessment scale v2.1. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144:1073e–1079e.
Kantor J. The SCAR (Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating) scale: development and validation of a new outcome measure for postoperative scar assessment. Br J Dermatol 2016;175:1394–6.
Kantor J. Utilizing the Patient Attitudes to Scarring Scale (PASS) to develop an outcome measure for postoperative scarring: a study in 430 patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74:1280–1.e1282.
Kantor J. Reliability and photographic equivalency of the scar cosmesis assessment and rating (SCAR) scale, an outcome measure for postoperative scars. JAMA Dermatol 2017;153:55–60.
Klassen AF, Ziolkowski N, Mundy LR, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument to evaluate treatments for scars: the SCAR-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1672.
Liu X, Nelemans PJ, Van Winden M, Kelleners-Smeets NW, et al. Reliability of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and a 4-point scale in evaluating linear facial surgical scars. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017;31:341–6.
McOwan CG, MacDermid JC, Wilton J. Outcome measures for evaluation of scar: a literature review. J Hand Ther 2001;14:77–85.
Raklyar E, Zloty DM. Use of a patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the V-Y advancement flap for reconstruction of medial cheek defects. Dermatol Surg 2012;38:1968–74.
Shao K, Parker JC, Taylor L, Mitra N, et al. Reliability of the patient and observer scar assessment scale when used with postsurgical scar photographs. Dermatol Surg 2018;44:1650–2.
Truong PT, Lee JC, Soer B, Gaul CA, et al. Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;119:487–94.
van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, Draaijers LJ, et al. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:514–22.
van der Wal MB, Tuinebreijer WE, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Middelkoop E, et al. Differential item functioning in the Observer Scale of the POSAS for different scar types. Qual Life Res 2014;23:2037–45.
Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002;11:193–205.
Fenwick EK, Man RE, Rees G, Keeffe J, et al. Reducing respondent burden: validation of the brief impact of vision impairment questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2017;26:479–88.