Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 1292–1295

Self-Reported “Worth It” Rating of Aesthetic Surgery in Social Media

Original Article Aesthetic

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.

Keywords

Aesthetic surgery Satisfaction Social media Worth it score 

References

  1. 1.
    Worth It Rating of Cosmetic Treatments—RealSelf. http://www.realself.com/reviews. Accessed 16 Oct 2011
  2. 2.
    Himpens J, Cadière GB, Bazi M et al (2011) Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Arch Surg 146:802–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Westling A, Gustavsson S (2001) Laparoscopic vs open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized trial. Obes Surg 11:284–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weiner R, Datz M, Wagner D, Bockhorn H (1999) Quality-of-life outcome after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding for morbid obesity. Obes Surg 9:539–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyce N (2012) The lancet technology. Lancet 379:1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hensel JM, Lehman JA Jr, Tantri MP et al (2001) An outcomes analysis and satisfaction survey of 199 consecutive abdominoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 46:357–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bragg TWH, Jose RM, Srivastava S (2007) Patient satisfaction following abdominoplasty: an NHS experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:75–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillerud E (1991) Suction lipoplasty: a report on complications, undesired results, and patient satisfaction based on 3511 procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:239–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis GM, Ringler SL, Short K et al (1995) Reduction mammaplasty: long-term efficacy, morbidity, and patient satisfaction. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1106–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Serletti JM, Reading G, Caldwell E, Wray RC (1992) Long-term patient satisfaction following reduction mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 28:363–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makki AS, Ghanem AA (1998) Long-term results and patient satisfaction with reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 41:370–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murillo WL (2004) Buttock augmentation: case studies of fat injection monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:1606–1614PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cárdenas-Camarena L, Lacouture AM, Tobar-Losada A (1999) Combined gluteoplasty: liposuction and lipoinjection. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:1524–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 768–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 126:245–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 35:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park AJ, Chetty U, Watson AC (1996) Patient satisfaction following insertion of silicone breast implants. Br J Plast Surg 49:515–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young VL, Nemecek JR, Nemecek DA (1994) The efficacy of breast augmentation: breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:958–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fiala TG, Lee WP, May JW Jr (1993) Augmentation mammoplasty: results of a patient survey. Ann Plast Surg 30:503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 175-176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 20:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McKinney P, Cook JQ (1981) A critical evaluation of 200 rhinoplasties. Ann Plast Surg 7:357–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC et al (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76:437–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Booth AJ, Murray A, Tyers AG (2004) The direct brow lift: efficacy, complications, and patient satisfaction. Br J Ophthalmol 88:688–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hellings PW, Nolst Trenité GJ (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117:985–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foda HMT (2005) Rhinoplasty for the multiply revised nose. Am J Otolaryngol 26:28–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Menon N (2004) One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWashington Adventist HospitalTakoma ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryGuy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations