Search

Background: The growing popularity of aesthetic procedures involving fillers, biostimulators, and neurotoxins has prompted concerns about patient safety. To address these concerns, a global Safety Task Force (STF) was formed. Aims: The inaugural STF meeting prioritized vascular compromise prevention and management, guiding clinical trial design and materials for future meetings, and collecting data from experts on current safety methods. Methods: The STF was formed and consisted of 16 experts from nine different countries, with each possessing distinct expertise in various fields related to aesthetic injectables. Current safety data, protocols, knowledge gaps and future research priorities were discussed and voted upon. Results: The establishment of a global database for tracking filler‐related AEs was favored by 93% of participants. Discussions revolved around the database's scope, data standardization, and whether non‐medical contributors should be included. Aspiration as a safety technique garnered support from 73% of participants. Approximately 43% of participants incorporate ultrasound in their injections, with divergent opinions on its impact and potential when used as a standard of practice versus in AE management. Most physicians on the task force incorporated cannula use for some of their injections (93%). There were varying perspectives on treatments for vascular adverse events (VAE), the primary causes, and the adoption of new protocols in the field. Conclusions: The STF meeting underscored the need for a coordinated effort to address complications related to HA fillers, including VAE management and hyaluronidase protocols. Reliable treatment endpoints were evaluated, but improved measurement methods are needed. Future meetings will focus on addressing delayed complications, furthering safety in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients can have different reasons for seeking cheek augmentation; while some are in need of volume augmentation, others may request projection and lifting. A treatment guide can be useful for treating clinicians in choosing the most suitable product. Aims: This 8‐week, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cheek augmentation using a treatment guide to choose between study products HACON and HALYF. Patients/Methods: Female subjects intending to undergo cheek augmentation were treated according to primary need for treatment—HACON for contouring or HALYF for projection. Treatments were performed according to approved labels. Assessments included Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) evaluations, subject satisfaction, subject‐perceived age (FACE‐Q), naturalness of facial expressions, 3D imaging analysis, and safety assessments. Results: All subjects (n = 60) were assessed as aesthetically improved by the investigators 4 and 8 weeks after last injection. For all subjects, contouring or projection was achieved as planned with natural‐looking results. Subject satisfaction was high in both study groups. Volume change of the cheek area was statistically significant from baseline to Week 4 (p < 0.001), in both treatment groups and on both sides of the face. Overall, treatments were well tolerated with mainly mild adverse events related to treatment. Conclusions: The proposed guide for product selection of HACON or HALYF for treatment of the cheek area was useful to achieve the primary treatment goal for both products. Treatments were well tolerated and associated with improved aesthetic appearance of the cheeks as well as high subject satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2022, the US experienced a significant increase in demand for minimally invasive aesthetic procedures, underscoring its rising acceptance amid an unregulated educational environment for practitioners. The absence of standardized educational pathways and quality control in aesthetic medicine, primarily provided by nonacademic institutions, highlights a critical need for establishing educational standards to ensure practitioner competence and patient safety. Objectives The aim of this study was to identify levels of competency for the aesthetic practitioner and necessary achievement milestones during the educational path from novice to expert injector. Methods A total of n = 386 international study participants responded to an online questionnaire regarding their experience in aesthetic medicine practice. The questionnaire comprised 58 questions focusing on professional data, the perceived difficulty of injection, and risk for the occurrence of adverse events for specific facial regions in soft tissue filler and toxin injections. Results Regardless of medical specialty and experience level, averages of 3.85 (1.8) years, 786.4 (2628) filler injections and 549.9 (1543) toxin injections were estimated to progress from novice to advanced injector, while averages of 6.10 (3.7) years, 1842.2 (4793) filler injections, and 1308.5 (3363) toxin injections were estimated to advance from advanced to expert injector. The nose and the perioral region have been ranked as the facial regions where it is most difficult to achieve a perfect aesthetic outcome and with the greatest risk for the occurrence of adverse events for filler and toxin injections, respectively. Conclusions In this study we establish an educational framework in aesthetic medicine by defining the progression from novice to competent and expert injector levels, suggesting 4 years of practice and over 790 filler and 550 neuromodulator injections for competence, and at least 6 years with 1840 filler and 1310 neuromodulator injections for expertise. We also identify critical facial regions for targeted treatments by different expertise levels. Level of Evidence: 4 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Optimizing outcomes of aesthetic treatments with injectable products usually requires a consideration of the entire face to ensure balance, along with combination treatments that align with the patient's goals. To help injectors, a method of assessing the patient and developing an individualized, holistic treatment plan was developed. This methodology is termed Assessment, Anatomy, Range, and Treatment (AART™) and Holistic Individualized Treatments (HITs™). This article aims to describe and evaluate the novel and systematic AART-HIT™ methodology. Methods: The AART-HIT™ methodology, including its associated diagnostic tool the Facial Assessment Scale (FAS™), were developed to aid injectors in completing a patient assessment in which the entire face is evaluated, the relevant anatomy is considered, the science behind the available range of products is understood, and the treatment plan is individualised for the patient. Specifically, the HITs™ are methodologic tools for practitioners to perform a standardized, full facial assessment and to create an individualized treatment approach to holistically address a patient's aesthetic concerns. The use of this methodology in clinical practice was assessed via a survey, deployed to twenty-eight clinicians. Results: Over 85% of participants agreed that the AART-HIT™ methodology was adequate for their needs. Additionally, 100% of participants agreed that the temporal sequencing of HITs™ and the FAS™ diagnostic tool was useful in clinical practice. Furthermore, over 70% of participants agreed that the anatomical locations identified in each HIT™ were sufficient, while over 80% responded that the HITs™ adequately represented the range of products. Finally, over 85% of participants agreed that the HITs™ covered different ethnic skin types and various patient ages and, over 80% of participants responded that they would not add additional elements to any of the 5 HITs™. Conclusion: The AART-HIT™ methodology, including the FAS™ were comprehensive enough for clinical use in providing a personalised treatment plan for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Addressing neck contouring with surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures includes understanding the origin of platysmal banding. A theory was postulated to explain this phenomenon by isometric vs isotonic muscular contraction patterns. However, no scientific proof had been provided to date for its correctness. Objectives The aim of this study was to confirm the correctness of the platysmal banding theory based on isometric vs isotonic muscular contractions. Methods Eighty platysma muscles from 40 volunteers (15 males and 25 females) were investigated (mean age 41.8; SD 15.2 years; mean BMI of 22.2; SD 2.3 kg/m2). Real-time ultrasound imaging was utilized to measure the increase in local muscle thickness inside and outside of a platysmal band as well as platysma mobility. Results Within a platysmal band, the local thickness of the muscle increases during muscular contractions by 0.33 mm (37.9%; P <.001). Outside of a platysmal band the thickness of the platysma muscle decreased by 0.13 mm (20.3%; P <.001). It was identified that within a platysmal band no gliding was detectable, whereas outside of a band an average muscle gliding of 2.76 mm was observed. Conclusions The results confirm the correctness of the isometric vs isotonic platysma muscle contraction pattern theory: isotonic muscle contraction (gliding without increase in tension and therefore in muscle thickness) vs isometric muscle contraction (no gliding but increase in tension and therefore in muscle thickness). These 2 types of contraction patterns occur within the platysma simultaneously and are an indicator for zones of adhesion in the neck to guide surgical and nonsurgical aesthetic procedures. Level of Evidence: 4 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hollowing of the infraorbital region represents a common concern among aesthetic patients. In the past decade, an increasing number of patients have resorted to noninvasive aesthetic procedures to treat these concerns. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety profile of infraorbital hyaluronic acid injections for aesthetic rejuvenation. Methods: Through a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective clinical trials, investigators sought to answer the research question "Does the use of needle versus cannula during infraorbital HA injections result in the same incidence rate of adverse events?" The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence rates of ecchymosis and edema in subject groups treated with a needle or cannula. Results: Subjects treated with needles had a statistically significant greater incidence rate of ecchymosis, compared to those treated with cannula. Conversely, subjects treated with cannula had a statistically significant greater incidence rate of edema, compared to those treated with needles. Conclusions: The incidence rates of adverse events following the administration of hyaluronic acid injections in the infraorbital region vary depending on whether a needle or cannula is used; with needles being associated with a greater risk of ecchymosis and cannulas being associated with a greater risk of edema. These findings should be discussed with patients prior to treatment consultation. Finally, as with most techniques, it is usually prudent to develop expertise with one technique before using a second, especially in cases where both approaches can be used and have different adverse event profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]