Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility Assessment of Body Contouring After Massive Weight Loss

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The number of surgical procedures performed for obesity and massive weight loss (MWL) is increasing. The authors set out to quantify the health state utility assessment of living with MWL that can occur after such procedures.

Methods

Utility assessments using the visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) were used to obtain utilities for MWL, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a sample of the general population and medical students.

Results

All the measures for MWL of the 100 volunteers (VAS, 0.79 ± 0.13; TTO, 0.89 ± 0.12; SG, 0.89 ± 0.15) were significantly different (p < 0.005) from the corresponding measures for monocular blindness (0.63 ± 0.18, 0.84 ± 0.17, and 0.86 ± 0.16, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.31 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.28, and 0.66 ± 0.27, respectively) except for the SG utility measure comparing monocular blindness with MWL. Age was inversely proportional to the TTO utility scores for MWL (p < 0.05). Caucasian race and medical education were independent predictors of SG utility scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In a sample of the general population and medical students, SG utility assessments for MWL were comparable with those for monocular blindness. Utility assessment of living with MWL varied with race (VAS and SG) and education (SG). The sample population, if faced with MWL, would consent to undergo a procedure such as body contouring with an 11% chance of death and be willing to trade 4 years of their life.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC (1984) Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 4:315–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989) Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5:559–575

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:370–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kneeland TS et al (2000) Measuring health state preferences in women with breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:280–288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van Osch SM, Stiggelbout AM (2008) The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 17:31–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5:1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE (2006) Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 15:527–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sinno HH, Thibaudeau S, Duggal A, Lessard L (2010) Utility scores for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(2):443–449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality-of-life measurement: valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nease RF Jr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B (1996) Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 5:175–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK et al (1997) Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care 35:915–920

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, Gospodarevskaya E, Loveman E, Baxter L, Clegg AJ (2009) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 13(41):1–190, 215–357, iii–iv

    Google Scholar 

  13. Smith KJ, Roberts MS (2005) Quality-of-life utility values for erectile function and sildenafil treatment. Clin Drug Investig 25:99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Torrance GW (1982) Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med 20:37–45

    Google Scholar 

  16. Torrence GW (1997) Preferences of health outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Am J Manag Care 3:S8–S20

    Google Scholar 

  17. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R et al (1984) Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 22:543–552

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

There was no external financial support for this study.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have a financial interest in any of the products, devices, drugs or procedures mentioned in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Hani Sinno, Stephanie Thibaudeau, Youssef Tahiri, Elise Mok, Lucie Lessard & Bruce Williams

  2. Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    George Christodoulou

  3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis Street Suite 5A, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Samuel J. Lin

Authors
  1. Hani Sinno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie Thibaudeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Youssef Tahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elise Mok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. George Christodoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lucie Lessard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bruce Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Samuel J. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel J. Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sinno, H., Thibaudeau, S., Tahiri, Y. et al. Utility Assessment of Body Contouring After Massive Weight Loss. Aesth Plast Surg 35, 724–730 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9676-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9676-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation