Patient Satisfaction Following Primary Closure or Second Intention Healing After Conventional Nasal Skin Cancer Excision: A Cross-sectional Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Nasal reconstruction after conventional surgical excision (CSE) of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) can be challenging. After excision and before the pathologic report, a simple reconstruction is favored. Yet, little is known about patient satisfaction after primary closure and second intention healing. OBJECTIVE: Patient satisfaction after nasal defect reconstruction with primary closure or second intention healing, using the FACE-Q Skin Cancer. METHODS: All patients who underwent CSE of nasal NMSC with immediate primary closure or second intention healing between March 2018 and March 2020 at Máxima Medisch Centrum Veldhoven were identified and asked to complete the FACE-Q Skin Cancer. RESULTS: Of 183 patients, 140 patients completed the questionnaire. Fifty-five defects were closed by primary closure (38.5%) and 88 by second intention healing (61.5%). Thirty-one complications were reported (16.7%), of which 87.1% ( n = 27) after second intention healing ( p = .004). Both groups experienced high facial and scar satisfaction, low appearance-related distress, and no to minimal adverse effects. Second intention healing had 2.7 higher odds of achieving the maximum scar satisfaction score ( p = .02). CONCLUSION: This study shows high satisfaction on facial and scar appraisal, low appearance-related distress, and no to minimal adverse effects for second intention healing and primary closure after CSE of nasal NMSC.

The Differences in the Practice of Cosmetic Dermatologic Procedures Between Physicians and Nonphysicians.

BACKGROUND: With a rise in demand for cosmetic dermatologic procedures comes an increase in nonphysician providers performing such procedures. However, little is known about the practice of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in the practice of cosmetic procedures provided by physicians and nonphysicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using participant ( n = 4,062) responses to an 18-point, web-based survey about previous cosmetic procedures. RESULTS: In total, 1,328 participants reported having previous cosmetic procedures done by a physician ( n = 828), a nonphysician ( n = 413), or an unknown provider ( n = 87). Respondents of all age ranges and male respondents ( p < .001) tended to choose physicians over nonphysician providers when choosing a practice. Moderate adverse events were more frequently seen when nonphysician providers completed cosmetic procedures ( p < .001). Despite a higher frequency (73.3% vs 51.8%) of more moderate complications seen in procedures done by nonphysician providers, over 70% of respondents believe that nonphysician providers are qualified enough to continue performing cosmetic procedures. CONCLUSION: People should be encouraged to make an informed decision when choosing a provider because cosmetic procedures are still considered medical procedures.

Appearance-related psychosocial distress after facial non-melanoma skin cancer surgery: A 1-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) for facial non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) experience appearance-related psychosocial distress due to its post-surgical esthetic changes. However, little is known about its development over a longer follow-up period. This study prospectively assessed appearance-related psychosocial distress in patients undergoing MMS for facial NMSC over a 1-year follow up period. METHODS: Patients who had MMS for facial NMSC between September 2020 and October 2021 were invited to answer the FACE-Q Skin Cancer - appearance-related psychosocial distress scale preoperatively, 2 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients completed the questionnaire at baseline. In addition, 158 (72.8%), 139 (64.1%), and 120 (55.3%) questionnaires were successfully answered 2 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, respectively. Patients with a peripheral lesion presented higher appearance-related psychosocial distress scores at baseline than patients with a central lesion (p = 0.02). There was a decreasing trend in appearance-related psychosocial distress over time, but without a significant result (baseline-2-week; p = 0.73, 2-week-6-month; p = 0.80, 6-month-1-year; p = 0.17, baseline-1-year; p = 0.23). Patients with secondary intention healing and graft reconstruction methods experienced more appearance-related psychosocial distress over time than patients with primary wound closures (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients still experience appearance-related psychosocial distress 1 year after MMS. These patients may benefit from targeted counseling. Additionally, predictors of more appearance-related psychosocial distress, such as secondary intention healing and graft reconstruction methods, may benefit from additional psychological care.

Patient Education on Scarring Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery: Patient Preference for Information Delivery.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple modalities for patient education ranging from written to audiovisual formats. However, little is known regarding which modality is optimal. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preference for educational materials about scar care following surgery for facial skin cancer using the FACE-Q Skin Cancer patient reported outcome measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the day of Mohs surgery, patients were given a written handout or viewed a 3-minute animation video regarding best practices in scar improvement. Afterward, patients received the FACE-Q Skin Cancer-Satisfaction with Information: Appearance scale. Three months later, patients were called and given the same scale and additional questions regarding scar care. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were enrolled. There was no difference between the 2 groups' preoperative information scores (p = .85) and the three-month postoperative scores (p = .37). The change in preoperative and postoperative score showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (p = .21); but there was a trend of higher satisfaction in the video group on the day of Mohs surgery. After the 3-month timepoint, there was a higher satisfaction trend observed with the written handout group. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences in information delivery and accessibility will contribute to greater information retention and satisfaction.

The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded. RESULTS: Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas. DISCUSSION: The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology. 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 www.springer.com/00266 .

Cancer worry after facial nonmelanoma skin cancer resection and reconstruction: A 1-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is one of the most diagnosed cancers in the world, with the number of new occurrences rising every year. Most patients with facial skin cancer experience cancer-related worry. Yet, little is known about their worry during the period after cancer treatment. This study aimed to assess the long-term change of cancer worry after surgical treatment in patients with NMSC. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for facial NMSC between December 2017 and March 2020 were asked to complete the FACE-Q Skin Cancer-Cancer Worry scale before (baseline), 3-month, and 1-year post-surgery. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients completed the baseline and 3-month, and 99 (65.6%) the 1-year post-operative survey. A significant decrease in cancer worry score was seen between baseline and 3-month post-surgery (p < 0.001). No difference was found between the 3-month and 1-year post-surgery scores (p = 0.78). Less improvement in cancer worry was seen for patients who had one facial skin cancer in their medical history (p = 0.001) and patients who had a history of facial surgery (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Post-surgery patients still experience cancer worry. Therefore, targeted counseling might be of value when coping with cancer-related concerns. Patients with a history of facial NMSC and patients with a history of facial surgery might benefit from additional counseling.

Nasal skin reconstruction: Time to rethink the reconstructive ladder?

BACKGROUND: Nasal scarring can compromise aesthetics and function given its complex three-dimensional structure and central location. This study aimed to measure patients' satisfaction after reconstruction for nasal defects following Mohs micrographic surgery. METHODS: Patients presenting with nasal nonmelanoma skin cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, USA and Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Netherlands from April 2017 to November 2019 were asked to participate. Reconstruction type, complications, and patients satisfaction were assessed. Patients completed the FACE-Q Skin Cancer - Satisfaction with Facial Appearance scale (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) and the Appraisal of Scars scale (1-year postoperative). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients completed the preand postoperative scales. There were 35 (27%) surgical defects repaired with primary closures, 71 (55.5%) with flaps, and 22 (17.2%) with full-thickness skin grafts (FTSG). Patients that underwent a flap or FTSG reconstruction had higher scar satisfaction scores than primary closures (p = 0.03). A trend was seen with patients following flap reconstructions scoring 7.8 points higher than primary closures and patients with upper nose defects scoring 6.4 points higher than lower nose defects. Males were significantly more satisfied than females. No significant difference was observed in the preoperative and postoperative facial appearance scores between the three groups (p = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Patients are more satisfied in the long term with their scars after flap reconstructions compared to primary closures. Therefore, nasal skin reconstruction may not follow the traditional reconstructive ladder and more complex approaches may lead to higher long-term scar satisfaction.

A Systematic Review and Overview of Flap Reconstructive Techniques for Nasal Skin Defects.

Background: Reconstruction of nasal skin defects can be challenging due to limited skin laxity and underlying cartilage and, therefore, often require a complex repair. The aim of this review is to systematically analyze the literature on nasal skin reconstructions with specific detail to flap reconstructions. Methods: A systematic literature review of nasal skin reconstruction was performed and focused on flap reconstructions. Flap reconstructions were stratified based on defect size, nasal subunit, and reconstruction type. Complication rates (CRs) and patient outcomes were also assessed. Results: A total of 176 articles (11,370 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 articles showed various flap techniques. For defects ≤1.5 cm, every subunit had four to six options except the alar rim, which showed one option. Rotation-advancement flaps were mostly used for the nasal tip and sidewall, whereas bilobed flaps were used more for the ala and dorsum. Defects >1.5 cm were most commonly reconstructed with the forehead flap. The mean CR of flap reconstructions was 13.8%. Only 8 of the 176 articles (4.5%) reported patient satisfaction using a standardized questionnaire. Conclusion: This review shows various flap reconstruction options with their corresponding CR that will help guide the surgeon in choosing reconstructive options for different nasal skin defects.

To see or not to see: Impact of viewing facial skin cancer defects prior to reconstruction.

Patient expectations of the scar after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) are often not realistic, leading to subsequent psychosocial sequelae such as anxiety, depression, and avoidance of social situations. When patient expectations are not met, this may also contribute to a decrease in patient satisfaction after surgery. Therefore, altering expectation levels may change patient satisfaction and psychosocial distress levels after surgery. To assess whether patient satisfaction improves in patients after MMS when patients view the surgical defect prior to reconstruction. Patients undergoing facial MMS between December 2017 and September 2019 were included. Patients received or did not receive a mirror after MMS to view the surgical defect before closing the defect. Patients were asked to complete the Dutch FACE-Q Skin Cancer before, one-week, three-months, and one-year after MMS. A total of 113 patients where included. One-hundred-eight (95.6%), 113 (100%), and 93 (82.3%) questionnaires were completed, one-week, three-months, and one-year follow-up, respectively. Satisfaction with facial appearance and appraisal of scars significantly improved over time for all patients, no such improvement was seen for appearance-related distress. Female patients who looked in the mirror had higher satisfaction with facial appearance than female patients who did not look in the mirror. Also, lower appearance-related distress scores were seen in patients who looked in the mirror prior to a flap reconstruction. Showing the defect in the mirror prior to the reconstruction may result in higher patient satisfaction in female patients and patients before undergoing a flap reconstruction.