Assessment of health-related quality of life in Turkish patients with facial prostheses

Abstract

BackgroundFacial prostheses are intended to provide a non-operative rehabilitation for patients with acquired facial defects. By improving aesthetics and quality of life (QOL), this treatment involves reintegration of the patient into family and social life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of QOL in adult patients with facial prostheses and to compare this perception with that of a control group.MethodsThe study participants consisted of 72 patients, who were divided into three equal-sized groups according to the type of prosthesis (OP- orbital prosthesis, AP- auricular prosthesis, NP - nasal prosthesis) and 24 healthy control participants without any congenital or acquired deformity of face or body. Clinical and socio-demographic data were gathered from each person’s medical chart. Participants completed the Turkish version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF). Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, Pearson's chi-square test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, and Pearson correlation were used to analyse the data.ResultsCompared with the control participants, patients with NP scored lower on the all domains of QOL and all three patient groups had lower scores on overall QOL and its domains of physical and environmental health. Patients with OP reported significantly lower physical health scores than those with AP, while patients with NP reported significantly lower overall QOL and psychological health scores than those with AP. Female patients had lower environmental domain scores than did male patients. The patient’s age and income correlated with social relationships QOL, while the patient’s income and the age of facial prosthesis were correlated with environmental QOL.ConclusionPatients with facial prostheses had lower scores in overall QOL, physical and environmental health domains than the control participants. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics such as age, gender, income, localization of the defect, and age of facial prosthesis were associated with patients’ QOL. These findings may provide valuable information about the specific health needs of these patients that may affect their well-being. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. Use of the WHOQOL-BREF may provide valuable information for determining patients’ needs and priorities as well as for planning and developing comprehensive prosthetic rehabilitation programs.

Quality of life assessment of patients utilizing orbital implant‐supported prostheses

“…20 Considering that the study sample consisted of patients who received osseointegrated implants as the primary form for the retention of prostheses, the objective was not to make a comparison with previous prostheses but to evaluate patient satisfaction with the use of the prostheses with the retention technique currently employed. 20 Considering that the study sample consisted of patients who received osseointegrated implants as the primary form for the retention of prostheses, the objective was not to make a comparison with previous prostheses but to evaluate patient satisfaction with the use of the prostheses with the retention technique currently employed.…”

Validation of the Turkish version of the Liverpool Oral Rehabilitation Questionnaire version 3 (LORQv3) in prosthetically rehabilitated patients with head and neck cancer

“…However, a small number of studies have assessed the HRQOL using oral health specific and generic measures in Turkish patients with head and neck cancer who had undergone oral rehabilitation [28, 29], whereas only one study has assessed HRQOL using a targeted measure in patients with implant-retained maxillofacial prostheses [30]. …”

Closed-eye orbital prosthesis: A clinical report

“…Changes in facial features are likely to be accompanied by various types of difficulties. [1][2][3] A patient's self-perception, emotional stability, personality characteristics, and social circumstances appear to be the salient factors in dealing with maxillofacial defects and the rehabilitation process, 3 and, when esthetic and functional demands cannot be surgically fulfilled, a facial prosthesis is a practicable alternative. [4][5][6] Such a prosthesis can improve the patient's appearance, enable early rehabilitation, shorten surgery and hospitalization time, lower treatment cost, and allow early psychosocial reintegration.…”

“…[4][5][6] Such a prosthesis can improve the patient's appearance, enable early rehabilitation, shorten surgery and hospitalization time, lower treatment cost, and allow early psychosocial reintegration. 1,2,7,8 In 2007, of 1200 facial and body prostheses fabricated in the UK, orbital prostheses ranked third (155 orbital). 8 Exenteration, or removal of the entire orbital contents (globe, muscle, fat, lids), is performed primarily to eradicate malignant orbital tumors.…”