Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Purpose
This study aims to systematically assess body and facial aesthetic surgery before-and-after photography bias on Instagram.
Methods
An Instagram search using the term “plastic surgeon” was conducted on October 2020. The top 11 plastic surgeons’ accounts were selected, and the first 15 images were selected from these profiles pertaining to different anatomical locations. Each photo was analyzed by a blinded board-certified plastic surgeon utilizing a 5-domain clinical photography bias score. The domains covered: (1) photo quality; (2) photo background; (3) position; (4) exposure/coverage; (5) bias.
Results
The search strategy identified a total of 161 sets of before and after. The most common anatomical site posted was the nose (
n
=47), followed by breasts (
n
=37). The most common angles posted were anterior–posterior view (
n
=61). The majority of images showed bias toward the post-operative image (70.8%). The main culprit with photo characteristics occurred due to there being a different post-operative background which was more flattering for the post-operative result (
n
=46,
p
=0.006) and a different view or angle, which again, flattered the post-operative image (
n
=36,
p
=0.02). Other factors that influenced the post-operative bias included photos of the patient covered with clothing (
n
=15,
p
=0.014) or standing (
n
=20,
p
=0.001), compared to a supine pre-operative image.
Conclusion
Before-and-after photography conditions in aesthetic surgery is biased toward the post-operative result on Instagram. This observation was noticed across all surgical anatomical areas. Accounts photographer tends to misrepresent the photo background, view of angle, patients pose or position, or covering certain body parts.
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
.