Premium
Comparison of clinical outcome parameters, the Patient Benefit Index (PBI‐k) and patient satisfaction after ablative fractional laser treatment of peri‐orbital rhytides
Author(s) -
Karsai Syrus,
Raulin Christian
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
lasers in surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1096-9101
pISSN - 0196-8092
DOI - 10.1002/lsm.20904
Subject(s) - wrinkle , medicine , ablative case , patient satisfaction , minimal clinically important difference , patient reported outcome , intense pulsed light , laser treatment , physical therapy , surgery , dermatology , quality of life (healthcare) , laser , randomized controlled trial , radiation therapy , gerontology , physics , nursing , optics
Background Laser treatment of facial rhytides has evolved as a major modality of aesthetic surgery. Published results, while generally encouraging, feature highly diverse evaluation methods, which makes an evidence‐based assessment of treatment efficacy and safety all but impossible. Objective To compare the results of different instruments of measurement. Patients/Methods Twenty‐eight patients were enrolled and completed the entire study. They received a single ablative fractional treatment of the peri‐orbital region. The evaluation included the Fitzpatrick wrinkle score, the profilometric measurement of wrinkle depth and the Patient Benefit Index (both before and 3 months after treatment) as well as the assessment of patient satisfaction (1, 3, 6 days and 3 months after treatment). Results All assessment instruments showed a significant, albeit moderate, improvement. The agreement between assessment methods was poor. Despite claiming to assess basically the same parameter, the Fitzpatrick wrinkle score and profilometry differed significantly, and neither assessment instrument showed any appreciable correlation with any other. Conclusions The outcome assessment of rhytide therapy—regardless of the method used—shows substantial room for improvement. Strict methodological precautions ought to be applied for ‘objective’ evaluation methods like photographic scoring and profilometry. Subjective methods of assessment are essential and might serve as a main outcome parameter. Finally, critical reappraisal of published treatment results seems warranted to review the quality of their methodology. Lasers Surg. Med. 42:215–223, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.