Abstract
Background
A wide variety of surveys have been used to validate the satisfaction of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery. However, such studies are often limited by patient number and number of surgeons. Social media now allows patients, on a large scale, to discuss and rate their satisfaction with procedures. The views of aesthetic procedures patients expressed in social media provide unique insight into patient satisfaction.
Methods
The “worth it” percentage, average cost, and number of respondents were recorded on October 16, 2011, for all topics evaluated on the aesthetic procedure social media site www.realself.com. Procedures were divided into categories: surgical, liposuction, nonsurgical, and dental. For each group, procedures with the most respondents were chosen and ordered by “worth it” score. A literature search was performed for the most commonly rated surgical procedures and the satisfaction rates were compared.
Results
A total of 16,949 evaluations of 159 aesthetic surgery topics were recorded. A correlation between cost of the procedure and percentage of respondents indicating that the procedure was “worth it” was not found. The highest-rated surgical procedure was abdominoplasty, with 93 % of the 1,589 self-selected respondents expressing that abdominoplasty was “worth it.” The average self-reported cost was $8,400. The highest-rated nonsurgical product was Latisse, with 85 % of 231 respondents reporting it was “worth it” for an average cost of $200. The satisfaction scores in the literature for commonly rated surgical procedures ranged from 62 to 97.6 %. No statistically significant correlations between literature satisfaction scores and realself.com “worth it” scores were found.
Conclusions
Abdominoplasty had the highest “worth it” rating among aesthetic surgical procedures. Aesthetic surgeons should be wary that satisfaction scores reported in the literature might not correlate with commonly achieved results. Social media has opened a new door into how procedures are evaluated and perceived.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Worth It Rating of Cosmetic Treatments—RealSelf. http://www.realself.com/reviews. Accessed 16 Oct 2011
Himpens J, Cadière GB, Bazi M et al (2011) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Arch Surg 146:802–807
Westling A, Gustavsson S (2001) Laparoscopic vs open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized trial. Obes Surg 11:284–292
Weiner R, Datz M, Wagner D, Bockhorn H (1999) Quality-of-life outcome after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity. Obes Surg 9:539–545
Boyce N (2012) The lancet technology. Lancet 379:1187
Hensel JM, Lehman JA Jr, Tantri MP et al (2001) An outcomes analysis and satisfaction survey of 199 consecutive abdominoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 46:357–363
Bragg TWH, Jose RM, Srivastava S (2007) Patient satisfaction following abdominoplasty: an NHS experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:75–78
Dillerud E (1991) Suction lipoplasty: a report on complications, undesired results, and patient satisfaction based on 3511 procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:239–246
Davis GM, Ringler SL, Short K et al (1995) Reduction mammaplasty: long-term efficacy, morbidity, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1106–1110
Serletti JM, Reading G, Caldwell E, Wray RC (1992) Long-term patient satisfaction following reduction mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 28:363–365
Makki AS, Ghanem AA (1998) Long-term results and patient satisfaction with reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 41:370–377
Chao JD, Memmel HC, Redding JF et al (2002) Reduction mammaplasty is a functional operation, improving quality of life in symptomatic women: a prospective, single-center breast reduction outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:1644–1652 discussion 1653–1654
Murillo WL (2004) Buttock augmentation: case studies of fat injection monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1606–1614
Cárdenas-Camarena L, Lacouture AM, Tobar-Losada A (1999) Combined gluteoplasty: liposuction and lipoinjection. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1524–1531
Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:757–767 discussion 768–772
Friel MT, Shaw RE, Trovato MJ, Owsley JQ (2010) The measure of face-lift patient satisfaction: the Owsley Facelift Satisfaction Survey with a long-term follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:245–257
Castello MF, Lazzeri D, Silvestri A et al (2011) Modified superficial musculoaponeurotic system face-lift: a review of 327 consecutive procedures and a patient satisfaction assessment. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:147–155
Park AJ, Chetty U, Watson AC (1996) Patient satisfaction following insertion of silicone breast implants. Br J Plast Surg 49:515–518
Young VL, Nemecek JR, Nemecek DA (1994) The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:958–969
Fiala TG, Lee WP, May JW Jr (1993) Augmentation mammoplasty: results of a patient survey. Ann Plast Surg 30:503–509
Gladfelter J, Murphy D (2008) Breast augmentation motivations and satisfaction: a prospective study of more than 3,000 silicone implantations. Plast Surg Nurs 28:170–174 quiz 175-176
Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 20:153–157
McKinney P, Cook JQ (1981) A critical evaluation of 200 rhinoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 7:357–361
Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC et al (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76:437–441
Booth AJ, Murray A, Tyers AG (2004) The direct brow lift: efficacy, complications, and patient satisfaction. Br J Ophthalmol 88:688–691
Hellings PW, Nolst Trenité GJ (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117:985–989
Foda HMT (2005) Rhinoplasty for the multiply revised nose. Am J Otolaryngol 26:28–34
Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Menon N (2004) One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:259–267
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Houtan Chaboki, whose enthusiasm for social media inspired this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Domanski, M.C., Cavale, N. Self-Reported “Worth It” Rating of Aesthetic Surgery in Social Media. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 1292–1295 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9977-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9977-z