Skip to main content
Log in

The Influence of Social Media and Easily Accessible Online Information on the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice: Literature Review and Our Own Experience

  • Original Article
  • Experimental/Special Topics
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript



Patients interested in aesthetic plastic surgery procedures increasingly seek advice on social media and rely on easily accessible online information. The investigatory goal was to determine the impact of this phenomenon on the everyday aesthetic plastic surgery practice.

Methods and Patients

Five hundred consecutive patients completed a questionnaire prior to their consultation with a plastic surgeon at our clinic. A questionnaire was also completed by 128 plastic surgeons practising in 19 different countries. A literature review was performed.


Almost all patients (95 %) used the internet to collect information prior to consultation, for 68 % of them it being their first search method. Social media were used by 46 % of patients and 40 % of these were strongly influenced when choosing a specific doctor. The majority of plastic surgeons (85 %) thought the information found on social media could lead to unrealistic expectations. However, 45 % of plastic surgeons believed that their consultations became easier after the advent of social media, 29 % found them more difficult. A literature review showed a high percentage of poor quality internet websites regarding plastic surgery and an increase in use of social media among plastic surgeons.


The internet and social media play an important and growing role in plastic surgery. This results in more informed patients but may create unrealistic expectations. Even if the internet provides ample information, it cannot replace the face-to-face consultation, which always should remain a detailed process, covering both risks and limitations of alternative procedures. Available literature on how social media influences the medical practice is still scarce and further research is needed.

Level of Evidence IV

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Fox S, Duggan M (2013) Health Online 2013. PewResearch Internet Project.

  2. Jejurikar SS, Rovak JM, Kuzon WM, Chung KC, Kotsis SV, Cederna PS (2002) Evaluation of plastic surgery information on the internet. Ann Plast Surg 49:460–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL, Matthews MS (2001) The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:171–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Domanski MC, Cavale N (2012) Self-reported “worth it” rating of aesthetic surgery in social media. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:1292–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Szychta P, Zielinski T, Rykala J, Witmanowski H, Kruk-Jeromin J (2012) Role of the internet in communication between patient and surgeon before rhinoplasty. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 46:248–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fox S (2011) Peer-to-peer Healthcare. PewResearch Internet Project.

  7. Zaidi FH, Jones CA (2009) Informing patients: oculoplastic surgery and the internet. Eye 23:2090–2093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parikh AR, Kok K, Redfern B, Clarke A, Withey S, Butler PE (2006) A portal to validated websites on cosmetic surgery: the design of an archetype. Ann Plast Surg 57:350–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smarrito S, Mitrofanoff M, Haddad R, Pavy B (2003) Do we need a chart of quality for websites related to cosmetic surgery? Ann Chir Plast Esthet 48:222–227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liao LM, Taghinejadi N, Creighton SM (2012) An analysis of the content and clinical implications of online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery. BMJ Open. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001908

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nassab R, Hamnett N, Nelson K, Kaur S, Greensill B, Dhital S, Juma A (2010) Cosmetic tourism: public opinion and analysis of information and content available on the internet. Aesthet Surg J 30:465–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aliu O, Chung KC (2010) Readability of ASPS and ASAPS educational web sites: an analysis of consumer impact. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1271–1278

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ingargiola MJ, Granick MS (2013) A survey of patient comprehension of readily accessible online educational material regarding plastic surgery procedures. Aesthet Surg J 33:436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walden JL, Panagopoulous G, Shrader SW (2010) Contemporary decision making and perception in patients undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30:395–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong WW, Camp MC, Camp JS, Gupta SC (2010) The quality of internet advertising in aesthetic surgery: an in-depth analysis. Aesthet Surg J 30:735–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fansa H, Haller S (2011) Patients’ decision for aesthetic surgery. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 43:368–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vardanian AJ, Kusnezov N, Im DD, Lee JC, Jarrahy R (2013) Social media use and impact on plastic surgery practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:1184–1193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wong WW, Gupta SC (2011) Plastic surgery marketing in a generation of “tweeting”. Aesthet Surg J 31:972–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wheeler CK, Said H, Prucz R, Rodrich RJ, Mathes DW (2011) Social media in plastic surgery practices: emerging trends in North America. Aesthet Surg J 31:435–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stevens RJG, Hamilton NM, O’Donoghue JM, Davies MP (2012) The use of the internet and social software by plastic surgeons. Eur J Plast Surg 35:747–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin Salzmann-Erikson RN, Henrik Eriksson RN (2011) Torrenting values, feelings, and thoughts-cyber nursing and virtual self-care in a breast augmentation forum. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being. doi:10.3402/qhw.v6i4.7378

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carraway JH (2006) Internet medical marketing: “Anything goes”? Aesthet Surg J 26:188–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rohrich RJ (2001) The web and your cosmetic surgery practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1253–1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Camp SM, Mills DC (2012) The marriage of plastic surgery and social media: a relationship to last a lifetime. Aesthet Surg J 32:349–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Dr Montemurro is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. Dr Hedén is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc.

Conflict of interest

The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Montemurro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montemurro, P., Porcnik, A., Hedén, P. et al. The Influence of Social Media and Easily Accessible Online Information on the Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Practice: Literature Review and Our Own Experience. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 270–277 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: