Assessing Patient Satisfaction Following Facelifts with Social Media Reviews

Abstract

Abstract Background Facelifts are one of the most common facial aesthetic surgery procedures. Patient satisfaction determines success of most aesthetic surgery but has been historically difficult to assess. Objective This study evaluated reviews by facelift patients on the aesthetic surgery social media website RealSelf.com to determine positive and negative factors underlying patient satisfaction following facelifts. Methods Facelift reviews were gathered from RealSelf.com with an automated web crawler. Reviews were categorized as positive or negative and by the primary and secondary reasons for the positive or negative review. Patient “worth it” and star ratings, physician specialty, and cost of procedure were also collected. Results A total of 2153 facelift reviews were collected. Overall, 1986 (92.24%) were positive and 167 (7.76%) were negative. The most common overall reasons for a positive review were aesthetic results (n=1571, 79.10%) and bedside manner (n=1488, 74.92%). The most common overall reasons for a negative review were outcome (n=137, 82.04%) and bedside manner (n=82, 49.10%). Most facelifts were performed by plastic surgeons (n=1796, 83.42%). The greatest 5-star rating percentages were seen for oral and maxillofacial surgeons (n=29, 93.55%), otolaryngologists (n=96, 92.31%), and plastic surgeons (n=1642, 91.43%). Of patients who provided a “worth it” rating, 1216 (91.91%) stated that their facelift was “worth it.” Conclusion Overall patient sentiment toward facelifts was positive. The factors most commonly affecting a positive patient experience were bedside manner and aesthetic results. Negative patient reviews were primarily attributed to dissatisfaction with aesthetic outcomes. Social media serves as a valuable tool for evaluating patient satisfaction with aesthetic surgery. 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 www.springer.com/00266.