Search

Background: With the global increase in the use of injectable fillers, more cases with serious adverse events such vision loss are being reported. This article aims to review the cases of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler-related vision loss and to discuss the potential efficacy of hyaluronidase (HYASE) treatment via different given methods., Methods: A total of 29 articles presenting 144 cases of HA filler-related vision loss were included in this study., Results: Most cases of HA filler-related vision impairment were reported from China, followed by Korea. The majority of cases were seen in women. The nose, forehead and glabella were the most commonly injection sites. All cases had vision impairment and nearly all cases were unilateral with immediate onset of visual signs and symptoms. Ophthalmic artery occlusion (OAO) and central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) were the two most commonly involved arterial obstruction patterns featured with a very poor prognosis followed by branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO), the most favorable involved arterial pattern for a better prognosis. HYASE given subcutaneously and intra-arterially helped with visual recovery to different degrees, while retrobulbar HYASE seemed to be less helpful., Conclusion: Complications after HA-based filler injection are extremely rare but can cause disastrous visual impairment. HYASE given subcutaneously and intra-arterially helped with visual recovery to different extents, and the efficacy might be reinforced when performed together, while retrobulbar HYASE seemed to be less helpful. However, to accurately access the efficacy of HYASE via different administration methods, further randomized controlled trials are needed., Level of Evidence Iii: 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 ., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background: Retrobulbar injection of hyaluronidase is a proposed but unproven treatment for blindness induced by hyaluronic acid gel fillers. This study examines the viability of this treatment by determining whether hyaluronidase can diffuse through the dural sheath of the optic nerve to clear a filler-mediated occlusion of the central retinal artery., Methods: Six human cadaveric optic nerves were studied in vitro. One optic nerve was selected as a control and maintained at physiologic temperature, without any exposure to hyaluronic acid gel or hyaluronidase. Another optic nerve was randomly selected to simulate the filler-induced central retinal artery occlusion with subsequent retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection. To simulate a central retinal artery occlusion, this experimental nerve and additional controls were injected with hyaluronic acid gel. These hyaluronic acid gel-injected nerves were then either injected directly with hyaluronidase to establish a control for intraneural hyaluronidase exposure, or immersed in undiluted hyaluronidase to simulate retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection. To control for passive diffusion of hyaluronic acid gel from neural parenchyma, one nerve was immersed in saline. Following fixation, the nerves were grossly and microscopically assessed for the quantity and distribution of hyaluronic acid., Results: Intact hyaluronic acid gel was observed grossly and microscopically in the control optic nerves injected directly with filler and not with hyaluronidase. The control optic nerve injected with intraneural hyaluronidase exhibited partial digestion of the filler. Immersion in undiluted hyaluronidase led to no apparent gross or microscopic digestion of injected intraneural hyaluronic acid gel., Conclusion: Hyaluronidase does not demonstrate the ability to cross the dural sheath of the optic nerve, suggesting that retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection is unlikely to alleviate hyaluronic acid gel-mediated central retinal artery occlusion and blindness.

While blindness after hyaluronic acid gel filler injection occurs only very rarely, it represents a devastating complication for the patient and the surgeon. Retrobulbar injection with hyaluronidase is the only known potential means of reversing this adverse event. However, positive outcomes remain anecdotal. We have attempted to review the current literature regarding possible efficacy and detail the indications and technique to be utilized, if hyaluronidase retrobulbar injection is to be attempted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Background: Vision loss is a rare but serious complication of facial hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injection, for which there is no proven rescue therapy. Retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection is advocated by many plastic surgeons as an emergency treatment, but has not been carefully assessed for its efficacy., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection as a rescue treatment for vision loss caused by HA filler embolization., Methods: Patients with vision loss caused by HA filler embolization were treated with retrobulbar hyaluronidase injection. Their visual acuity and fundoscopic images before and after treatment were analyzed for efficacy assessment., Results: One patient with branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO), one patient with posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION), one patient with ophthalmic artery occlusion, and one patient with both BRAO and PION were treated with one or two retrobulbar injections of 1500 or 3000 units hyaluronidase. No patients demonstrated substantial retinal artery recanalization or vision acuity improvement after treatment., Conclusions: One or two retrobulbar injections of 1500 to 3000 IU hyaluronidase are unable to recanalize retinal artery occlusion or improve the visual outcome of patients who presented with vision loss caused by HA filler embolization at least four hours after onset., Level of Evidence: 4., (© 2017 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Vascular occlusion causing blindness is a rare yet greatly feared complication of the use of facial aesthetic fillers. The authors performed a review of the aesthetic literature to ascertain the reported cases of blindness and the literature reporting variations in the vascular anatomy of the human face. The authors suggest a small but potentially helpful addition to the accepted management of the acute case. Cases of blindness, mostly irreversible, from aesthetic filler injections have been reported from Asia, Europe, and North America. Autologous fat appears to be the most frequent filler causing blindness. Some cases of partial visual recovery have been reported with hyaluronic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite fillers. The sudden profusion of new medical and nonmedical aesthetic filler injectors raises a new cause for alarm about patient safety. The published reports in the medical literature are made by experienced aesthetic surgeons and thus the actual incidence may be even higher. Also, newer injectors may not be aware of the variations in the pattern of facial vascular arborization. The authors present a summary of the relevant literature to date and a suggested helpful addition to the protocols for urgent management.

We report a case of a 23-year-old man with cerebral infarction and permanent visual loss after injection of a hyaluronic acid gel filler for augmentation rhinoplasty. The patient was admitted to the hospital with complaints of loss of vision in the right eye, facial paralysis on the right side, and paralysis of the left limbs with severe pain during augmentation rhinoplasty with filler injection. Brain magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography showed ophthalmic artery obstruction and right middle cerebral artery infarction. Acute thrombolysis was performed to treat the infarction; however, the patient's condition did not improve. Intracerebral hemorrhage in the right temporal/frontal/occipital/parietal lobe, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and midline shifting were observed on brain computed tomography after 24 hours after thrombolysis. Emergency decompressive craniectomy was performed. After the surgery, the patient continued to experience drowsiness, with no improvement in visual loss and motor weakness. Three months later, he could walk with cane. This case indicates that surgeons who administer filler injections should be familiar with the possibility of accidental intravascular injection and should explain the adverse effects of fillers to patients before surgery.

A 47-year-old patient was legally blind in her only eye for months due to long-lasting ocular hypotension following chronic uveitis and several operations for cataract and secondary glaucoma. With injections of 0.7 to 2.5 cc 1% Healon into the anterior chamber and vitreous cavity at intervals of 2 to 12 months, intraocular pressure levels between 5 and 12 mmHg could be maintained resulting in an improvement of the visual acuity up to 25/100. The treatment has been continued for over 5 years. A positive correlation was found between the volume of injected Healon and the integral of intraocular pressure over time, and between visual acuity and pressure level. Reduced aqueous flow, high trabecular outflow resistance, and a low rate of clearance of Healon from the vitreous cavity is obviously responsible for the long-lasting elevation of low intraocular pressure levels and for the restoration of useful vision.