The Use of Validated Visual Scales in Plastic Surgery: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND: The assessment of the human body, whether for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes, is an inherently visual endeavor. Ideally, reproducible, prompt, and cost-effective systems of visual evaluation would exist that can provide validated assessments of the aesthetic endpoints of treatment. One method to accomplish a standardization of the appreciation of visual endpoints is the use of visual scales. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the use of validated visual scales within aesthetic medicine, dermatology, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed with a defined search strategy and extensive manual screening process. The Medical Outcomes Trust guidelines for visual scales in medicine were used, with special attention paid to each study's validation metrics. The review process identified 44 publications with validation data of sufficient quality from an initial survey of 27,745 articles. All rating scales based on imaging other than standardized clinical photographs were excluded. RESULTS: The review demonstrates that validated visual assessment in plastic surgery is incomplete. Within specific subfields of aesthetic medicine and dermatology, many of the ( n = 20) facial aging scales were well-validated and demonstrated high reliability. Publications ( n = 8) focused on the evaluation of facial clefts demonstrated heterogeneity in the methods of validation and in overall reliability. Within the areas of breast surgery ( n = 9), body contouring ( n = 2), and scarring ( n = 5), the scales were variable in the methods used and the validation procedures were diverse. Scales using a visual guide tended to have better interrater (kappa = 0.75) and intrarater reliability (kappa = 0.78), regardless of the specific area of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The fields of aesthetic medicine, and aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery require assessment of visual states over time and between many observers. For these reasons, the development of validated and reliable methods of visual assessment are critical. Until recently, the use of these tools has been limited by their time-consuming nature and cost.

Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes after Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the aesthetic success of breast reconstruction can be difficult. Patients, surgeons, and the general population may differ in what constitutes a successful outcome. Recently, crowdsourcing has emerged to accumulate and analyze data on a massive scale. The authors propose that crowdsourcing can be a useful tool to reliably rate aesthetic outcomes of breast reconstruction. METHODS: One hundred one deidentified photographs of patients at various stages of breast reconstruction were gathered. Assessment tools included a five-point Likert scale and the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) visual assessment scale. Anonymous crowd workers and a group of expert reconstructive surgeons rated an identical set of photographs on the Likert scale. Crowd workers also rated the set of photographs on the TRAM scale. RESULTS: The authors obtained 901 anonymous, layperson evaluations on both Likert and TRAM scales. Crowdsourced assessment data collection took 28.6 hours. Expert assessment took 15 months. Expert and crowdsourced scores were equivalent on the Likert scale (overall interrater reliability, κ = 0.99; 95 percent CI, 0.98 to 0.99). Intrarater reliability among each subcomponent was highly reproducible for the crowd (r = 0.98; 95 percent CI, 0.97 to 0.99) and experts (r = 0.82; 95 percent CI, 0.77 to 0.87). Breast contour and positioning were most predictive of overall aesthetic result. Skin patch and scar were least predictive of overall aesthetic appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcomes rated by crowds were reliable and correlated closely with those by expert surgeons. Crowdsourcing can be a rapid, reliable, and valid way to assess aesthetic outcomes in the breast reconstruction patient.

Long-Term Effect of Multiple Operations on Psychosocial Function in Teenage Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate patients undergo a significant number of interventions during their childhood and adolescence. Although the intention of such interventions is to improve psychosocial functioning, there exists a paucity of data on the psychosocial outcomes of the burden of care on cleft children. In this work, the long-term effects of quantity and timing of childhood operations on teenagers with cleft lip and palate were evaluated. METHODS: Cleft lip and palate patients (aged 14 to 17 years; n = 55) and an age-matched unaffected cohort (n = 14) prospectively enrolled from two institutions were administered the anger, anxiety, and depressive symptoms instruments from the Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Total number of operations and operations stratified by age groups (0 to 7, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, and 14 to 17 years) were evaluated in relationship to instrument scores. Descriptive statistics, independent t tests, Pearson correlations, and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: No differences in overall psychosocial functioning were found between the cleft lip and palate and comparison groups. Total quantity of childhood operations did not correlate to psychosocial functioning of cleft lip and palate teenagers. However, multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated that increased number of operations in the 8- to 10-year-old age range predicted increased anxiety and depressive symptoms in teenagers (ß = 0.38, p = 0.009; and ß = 0.29, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: It was previously reported by the authors' group that the 8- to 10-year-old age range is an at-risk period for psychosocial distress in children with craniofacial anomalies. Their current work demonstrates that increased number of operations during this time frame may result in long-term consequences in anxiety and depression in cleft lip and palate patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.