Articles Vol. 67 No. 8 25/08/2026

EFFECTIVENESS OF A SUPPORTIVE INTERVENTION PROGRAM ON QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER AESTHETIC BLEPHAROPLASTY USING THE GLASGOW BENEFIT INVENTORY

Hoang Van Hong1,2,3,4, Hoang Van Hong1,2,3,4, Ngo Van Toan2,4, Tran Quynh Anh2,4, Pham Quang Anh1,3
1 Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Hanoi Medical University Hospital
2 Hanoi Medical University
3 Khoa Phẫu thuật tạo hình Thẩm Mỹ, Bệnh viện Đại học Y Hà Nội
4 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67i8.6389
0 Views
0 Downloads
Keywords
aesthetic blepharoplasty, Glasgow Benefit Inventory, quality of life, patient satisfaction, supportive intervention
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate quality-of-life improvement after aesthetic blepharoplasty using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and to assess the effectiveness of a supportive intervention program in enhancing postoperative outcomes.

Methods: A controlled interventional study was conducted on 150 patients undergoing aesthetic blepharoplasty at the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hanoi Medical University Hospital, from December 2023 to February 2025. Participants were allocated into intervention and control groups, with 75 patients in each group. The intervention group received a standardized supportive care program including preoperative counseling, expectation management, postoperative care instructions, and scheduled follow-up monitoring. Quality of life was assessed using the GBI at 1 month and 3 months after surgery.

Results: The intervention group had significantly higher GBI scores than the control group at both 1 month (27.3±17.2 vs. 21.1±17.6; p=0.012) and 3 months (43.7±19.1 vs. 34.7±21.8; p=0.002). General benefit and social support domains improved significantly more in the intervention group at both follow-up time points (p<0.05). The relative intervention effect estimated by the difference-in-differences method was 19.8% at 3 months. Patients attending three or more consultations had significantly higher GBI scores, whereas patients with university-level education had lower GBI scores at 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusion: Aesthetic blepharoplasty significantly improved patients’ quality of life. A supportive intervention program involving counseling, expectation management, and postoperative follow-up may further enhance perceived benefit and postoperative treatment experience.

References
[1]
Papadopulos N, Archimandritis T, Henrich G, Kovacs L, Machens H, Klöppel M. Quality of Life Improvement Following Blepharoplasty: A Prospective Study. The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2022;34:888–92. doi: 10.1097/scs.0000000000009119. Google Scholar
[2]
Vasović D, Karamarković M, Jovanović M, Stojičić M, Rašić D, Marjanović I, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Life following Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty: A Prospective Analysis. Medicina. 2024;60. doi: 10.3390/medicina60030500. Google Scholar
[3]
Herruer J, Prins J, Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen G, Ingels K. Patient-reported outcome measurement in upper blepharoplasty: How to measure what the patient sees. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS. 2018;71 9:1346–51. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.033. Google Scholar
[4]
Gallo L, Kim P, Churchill I, Gallo M, Yuan M, Voineskos S, et al. Measuring the Impact of Surgical and Non-surgical Facial Cosmetic Interventions Using FACE-Q Aesthetic Module Scales: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plastic Surgery. 2024;33:403–18. doi: 10.1177/22925503231225480. Google Scholar
[5]
Martin S, Nugent N, Pacifico M. Pearls of Wisdom: Expert Insights for Communicating With Aesthetic Patients. Aesthetic surgery journal. 2024. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae169. Google Scholar
[6]
Friedman O, Tal D. Temporal satisfaction patterns in body image after aesthetic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS. 2025;109:195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2025.07.044. Google Scholar
[7]
Friedman O. Expectation management and patient-surgeon communication in aesthetic surgery: A narrative review of current challenges and communication strategies. Patient education and counseling. 2026;146:109511. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2026.109511. Google Scholar
[8]
Dirhoussi N, Poisbleau D, Hersant B, Meningaud J-P. [What do our patients want? Patients' expectations and requests during an initial plastic surgery consultation]. Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique. 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2025.03.009. Google Scholar
[9]
Gupta R, Bansal P, Chaudhury G, Gupta R, Keshari A, Sharma P. Psychological Determinants of Patient Satisfaction in Aesthetic Surgery: The Impact of Preoperative Screening and Counselling. International Journal of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2025;1:57–62. doi: 10.1177/30499240251322304. Google Scholar
[10]
Nieuwenhuis ID, Luong K, Vissers L, Hummelink S, Slijper H, Ulrich D. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Appearance, Psychological Well-Being, and Aging Appraisal After Upper Blepharoplasty: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study. Aesthetic surgery journal. 2021. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjab389. Google Scholar
[11]
Luong K, Vissers L, Nieuwenhuis ID, Hazenkamp L, Hummelink S, Slijper H, et al. Factors Associated with Treatment Outcome Satisfaction Six Months after Upper Blepharoplasty: A Large Cohort Study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 2023;11. doi: 10.1097/gox.0000000000005260. Google Scholar