Table 3.
Patient Satisfaction Outcomes
| Author (publication year) | Outcome assessment | Follow up (months) | Comparisonc | Comparison with preoperative photographs | Satisfaction intervention | Satisfaction control | Difference in satisfaction (intervention compared with control or postoperative compared with preoperative) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRP/PRF | |||||||
| Gennai et al 2017 | LS (1-4) | 6 | Within-group outcome | Yes | Fair to good effect (2.6) | — | — |
| Gentile et al 2014 | LS (1-6) | 12 | Within-group outcome | Yes | nr | — | — |
| Hesamirostami et al 2019 | GAIS | 12 (6-30) | Within-group outcome | Yes | Moderate to excellent improvement, 7% poor improvement. | — | — |
| Ozer et al 2019 | FACE-Q | 9 | Within-group change | — | Improved from 28.4 [23.3] to 90.3 [17.5] | — | 61.9 ↑ (P < 0.001) |
| Tenna et al 2017 | FACE-Q | 6 | Between-group outcome | No | 84%b | 81%b | NS |
| Willemsen et al 2018 | VAS (1-10) | 6 | Between-group outcome | No | NR | NR | NS |
| ASCs/BMSCs | |||||||
| Bashir et al 2019 | LS (1-5) | 6 | Between-group outcome | Yes | 4.3 [0.7] | 2.5 [0.5] | 1.8 ↑ NSR |
| Jianhui et al | LS (1-3) | NR | Between-group outcome | No | NR | NR | — |
| Koh et al 2012 | VAS (1-5) | NR | Between-group outcome | No | 4.5 | 3.1 | 1.4 ↑ NSR |
| cSVF | |||||||
| Castro-Govea et al 2018 | LS of parents (1-5) | 18 | Within-group outcome | No | 67% of the parents were satisfied and 33% were slightly satisfied | — | — |
| Lee et al 2012 | NRS (1-10) | 3 | Between-group outcome | Yes | Malar eminence 7 (6-8) Infraorbital fold 8 (7-9) Nasolabial fold 8 (7-9)a |
Malar eminence 6 (5-8) Infraorbital fold 6 (5-7) Nasolabial fold 7 (5-8)a |
Malar eminence 1 ↑ (P = 0.008) Infraorbital fold 2 ↑ (P = 0.010) Nasolabial fold 1 ↑ (P = 0.011) |
| Sterodimas et al 2011 | LS (1-5) | 18 | Between-group outcome | No | 4.0 b | 4.0 b | 0 NS |
| Yin et al 2020 | LS (1-5) | 6 | NR | No | — | — | — |
| tSVF | |||||||
| Gentile et al 2020 | LS (1-6) | NR | Between-group outcome | No | 91% fully satisfied and 9% not fully satisfied | 37% fully satisfied and 63% not fully satisfied | (P = 0.031) |
| Gu et al 2018 | POSAS | 12 | Within-group change | Yes | Preoperative 28.8 [1.0] vs postoperative 12.2 [0.8] | — | 16.6 ↓ (P < 0.001)d |
| Wei et al 2017 | nr | 24 | Between group outcome | No | 90% | 70% | 20% ↑ (P < 0.01) |
Where indicated, values are mean [standard deviation] or (range). NR, not reported; NS, not significant; NSR, no significance reported, no statistical test was performed/reported; —, no quantification, no intervention or control group present or no statistical test reported. Outcome assessment: NRS, numeric rating scale, with a higher number meaning a better score; LS, Likert scale, each number represents an outcome, such as unsatisfactory-slightly satisfactory, satisfactory; VAS, visual analog scale; FACE-Q, a validated questionnaire using a combination of Likert scales and visual analog scales; POSAS, a validated questionnaire specifically designed for scars (the overall patient-reported POSAS score is reported in this table; a lower score means a greater satisfaction); GAIS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale is a Likert scale, 0-4. Supplements: PRP, platelet-rich plasma; PRF, platelet-rich fibrin; cSVF, cellular stromal vascular fraction; tSVF, tissue stromal vascular fraction; ASC, adipose-derived stromal cell; BMSC, bone marrow–derived stromal cell.
aOverall patient satisfaction was noted from the patient satisfaction scores.
bData were manually calculated from the tables in the article.
cWithin-group outcome means that no comparison to baseline or comparison to a control group was made. Participants were asked to evaluate the outcome after surgery without evaluating the preoperative situation.
dA lower score of the POSAS questionnaire means a greater satisfaction.