ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Facial Reconstruction Case Series Following the Implementation of an Integrated Craniofacial Multidisciplinary Team Clinic, Three-Dimensional Photography, and Computer Modeling.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Rhinoplasty Recovery: Linguistic Intelligence and Machine Learning-Driven Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Advantages of Mohs Surgery in the Treatment of NMSC in the Head and Neck District.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facial reconstruction surgery is often a complex and staged process, leading to lengthy reconstructive journeys for patients. The integration of a clinical pathway can give patients a clearer understanding of what to expect at each stage of their reconstructive journey. Objectives: The authors demonstrate how the incorporation of multidisciplinary team clinics, three-dimensional (3D) photography, and 3D modeling into an integrated pathway can streamline the process for patients undergoing facial reconstructive surgeries and aid their understanding of their surgeries. Methods: A novel clinical pathway was developed for patients undergoing facial reconstructive surgery at a tertiary reconstructive unit in London. A case series was collated of 35 patients who had been through the integrated pathway. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed using FACE-Q scales, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, Self-Perception of Age score, and Ordinal Rank change in facial aesthetic appearance, determined subjectively and objectively. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate mean averages for each scale and PROM. Results: High patient satisfaction with overall facial appearance, aging appearance, and the decision-making process was demonstrated. The average perceived improvement in age-related facial appearance was -7.7 years postreconstruction compared with prereconstruction. The Ordinal Rank improvement on facial aesthetic appearance showed considerable improvement, both subjectively and objectively. Conclusions: The authors advocate the implementation of an integrated clinical pathway for facial reconstruction, with positive impacts observed in terms of patient satisfaction and objective assessments of facial appearance. Similar principles can be extrapolated to other aspects of reconstructive surgery. Level of Evidence 3:
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.