A Practical Algorithm for Integrating Skincare to Improve Patient Outcomes and Satisfaction With Energy-Based Dermatologic Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Medical aesthetic procedures for facial antiaging with laser and energy-based devices (EBDs) are rapidly increasing, but standards integrating skincare before, during, and after these treatments are lacking. The algorithm for integrated skin care for facial antiaging treatment with EBDs aims to stimulate healing, reduce downtime, and improve comfort and treatment outcomes. METHODS: A panel of 8 global physicians employed a modified Delphi method and reached a consensus on the algorithm integrating skincare based on the best available evidence, the panel's clinical experience, and opinions. RESULTS: The algorithm has a pretreatment (starts 2 - 4 weeks before the procedure) and treatment (day of treatment) section, followed by care after the procedure (0 - 7 days) and follow-up care (1 - 4 weeks after the procedure or ongoing). Applying a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF 50 or higher, combined with protective measures such as wearing a wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses, is recommended to protect the face from sun exposure. Dyschromia is a significant concern for those with skin of color (SOC). Clinicians may recommend skincare using a gentle cleanser and moisturizer containing vitamins C and E, retinoid, or other ingredients such as niacinamide, kojic acid, licorice root extract, azelaic acid, and tranexamic acid, depending on the patient's facial skin condition. CONCLUSION: Medical aesthetic procedures for facial antiaging with EBDs integrating skincare or topical treatments may improve outcomes and patient satisfaction. Topical antioxidants and free radical quenchers can combat photodamage and may offer a safe alternative to topical hydroquinone.  J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(5):353-359.     doi:10.36849/JDD.8092.

The Use of Hyaluronidase in Aesthetic Practice: A Comparative Study of Practitioner Usage in Elective and Emergency Situations.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acids (HAs) continue to be the fillers of choice worldwide and their popularity is growing. Adverse events (AEs) are able to be resolved through the use of hyaluronidase (HYAL). However, routine HYAL use has been at issue due to perceived safety issues. OBJECTIVES: There are currently no guidelines on the use of HYAL in aesthetic practice, leading to variability in storage, preparation, skin testing, and beliefs concerning AEs. This manuscript interrogated the use of this agent in daily practice. METHODS: A 39-question survey concerning HYAL practice was completed by 264 healthcare practitioners: 244 from interrogated databases and 20 from the consensus panel. Answers from those in the database were compared to those of the consensus panel. RESULTS: Compared to the database group, the consensus group was more confident in the preparation of HYAL, kept reconstituted HYAL for longer, and was less likely to skin test for HYAL sensitivity and more likely to treat with HYAL in an emergency, even in those with a wasp or bee sting anaphylactic history. Ninety-two percent of all respondents had never observed an acute reaction to HYAL. Just over 1% of respondents had ever observed anaphylaxis. Five percent of practitioners reported longer-term adverse effects, including 3 respondents who reported loss of deep tissues. Consent before injecting HA for the possible requirement of HYAL was always obtained by 74% of practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Hyaluronidase would appear to be an essential agent for anyone injecting hyaluronic acid filler. However, there is an absence of evidence-based recommendations with respect to the concentration, dosing, and treatment intervals of HYAL, and these should ideally be available.

Making Sense of Late Tissue Nodules Associated With Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of delayed-onset tissue nodules (DTNs) due to hyaluronic acid (HA) injections is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To formulate a rational theory for DTN development and their avoidance and treatment. METHODS: A multidisciplinary and multicountry DTN consensus panel was established, with 20 questions posed and consensus sought. Consensus was set at 75% agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 16 of 20 questions regarding the pathogenesis of DTNs, forming the basis for a classification and treatment guide. CONCLUSIONS: The group believes that filler, pathogens, and inflammation are all involved in DTNs and that DTNs most likely are infection initiated with a variable immune response. Injected filler may incorporate surface bacteria, either a commensal or a true pathogen, if the skin barrier is altered. The initially high molecular weight HA filler is degraded to low molecular weight HA (LMWHA) at the edge of the filler. Commensals positioned within the filler bolus may be well tolerated until the filler is degraded and the commensal becomes visible to the immune system. LMWHA is particularly inflammatory in the presence of any local bacteria. Commensals may still be tolerated unless the immune system is generally heightened by viremia or vaccination. Systemic pathogenic bacteremia may also interact with the filler peripheral LMWHA, activating Toll-like receptors that induce DTN formation. Given this scenario, attention to practitioner and patient hygiene and early systemic infection treatment deserve attention. Classification and treatment systems were devised by considering each of the 3 factors-filler, inflammation, and infection-separately.

Factors Influencing Trust and Trustworthiness: Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES)-Part 3.

Background: Despite the widely recognized importance of trust in professional relationships, it remains elusive, complex, multidimensional, and difficult to quantify due to the lack of validated tools. Objectives: The authors sought to explore both the important factors for building trust with cosmetic injectable patients and strategies for improving levels of trustworthiness in aesthetic practitioners. Methods: In order to explore factors in building trust with cosmetic injectable practitioners, a global study was conducted via an online survey. The Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES) survey assessed the relative importance of qualifications and training; reviewing of previous work (before and after photos); reputation; connection; time spent; online presence; and personal appearance of the practitioner in developing trust in a cosmetic practitioner. Results: The CIPEES survey collected 1488 responses across 75 countries, with 66% of participants completing all 15 questions. The respondents were 95.6% female and 4.4% male, with ages ranging from 18 to >65 years old (median 33 years old). The number 1 ranked reason for being able to trust a cosmetic injector was qualifications and training, followed by the reputation of the practitioner, and time spent by the practitioner with the survey respondent. Practitioner online presence was considered the least important factor in helping develop trust. Conclusions: The CIPEES survey results support patient trust being built through credibility, reliability, and intimacy, with low levels of practitioner self-orientation. The trustworthiness equation provides a framework for identifying practitioner weaknesses in patient relationships and actionable methods of improving trustworthiness.

The Importance of Functional Quality in Patient Satisfaction: Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study-Part 2.

Background: Quality assessment comprises 2 distinct forms: technical quality (TQ) and functional quality (FQ). On the one hand, TQ describes accuracy and excellence, the degree to which procedures are done "correctly." On the other hand, FQ is the way services are delivered and represents how the customer perceives and experiences the treatment or service. Objectives: To determine the relative importance of functional quality factors in the care of cosmetic injectable patients and return patronage. Methods: The Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES) survey assessed reasons for return patronage to a specific cosmetic injector and the correlation between satisfaction with cosmetic results (patient assessment of TQ) and respondents' trust level in their practitioner, a marker for FQ. Results: The CIPEES survey collected 1488 responses across 75 countries, with 66% of participants completing all 15 questions. The respondents were 95.6% female and 4.4% male, with ages ranging from 18 years to >65 years old (median 33 years old). The number one ranked reason for returning to a previous cosmetic injector (return patronage) was "Trust in my practitioner's action and ability," closely followed by "Cosmetic result/outcome from the previous treatment/s." Respondents' level of satisfaction with their cosmetic results also correlated highly with trust in their practitioners. Conclusions: In order to maximize patient satisfaction and return patronage, healthcare practitioners should focus on improving FQ care and value it at least as high as TQ in the delivery of cosmetic injectable treatments.

The Importance of Patient Mindset: Cosmetic Injectable Patient Experience Exploratory Study-Part 1.

Background: To meet the needs of each individual cosmetic injectable patient, focus is moving toward a detailed, patient-centered, holistic consultation with pretreatment exploration of the patient's mindset. The Cosmetic Injectables Patient Experience Exploratory Study (CIPEES) was developed to explore patient motivation, mindset, engagement, and factors impacting the patient-practitioner relationship. Objectives: In order to best meet the needs of individual aesthetic patients, the authors examine the variability and importance of mindset factors in patients seeking cosmetic injectables. Methods: A study was conducted through an online survey. Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements concerning their thoughts and feelings around appearance, treatment goals, and motivating factors. Participants were asked to select one of the following: "describes me well," "somewhat describes me," or "does not describe me." Results: In total, 1269 participants completed the relevant survey question. Respondents were 95.6% female and 4.4% male, with ages ranging from 18 to > 65 years old (median 33 years old). Responses were also analyzed according to age group. Data analysis revealed a majority of respondents seeking natural results, with a 15%-20% minority considering a "done" look to be acceptable or even ideal. High numbers of respondents reported being critical of their own appearance and concerned about a specific feature to be "fixed." Conclusions: Exploring the nuances of patient mindset will assist practitioners in meeting the unique needs of each patient and may also help them to avoid treating patients whose requirements or expectations are outside their circle of competence.

Movement of the Syringe During Filler Aspiration: An Ultrasound Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspiration prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection is often taught as a safety maneuver to minimize the risk of intravascular injection; however, the validity of this technique in aesthetic practice is being increasingly challenged. One key assumption underpinning the validity of the aspiration test is that the needle tip does not move during the aspiration and subsequent injection of filler. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to visualize and measure needle tip movement in real time during aspiration and injection of filler. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of injector experience and double-handed versus single-handed aspiration technique in maintaining stability of the syringe. METHODS: Under real-time ultrasound visualization, 3 injectors with different levels of experience injected hyaluronic acid filler into pork belly tissue utilizing both double-handed and single-handed aspiration techniques. Needle tip movements were recorded and measured by means of ultrasound and video. RESULTS: The aspiration maneuver is in all cases associated with retrograde movement of the needle tip, ranging from 1.1 to 5.3 mm (mean, 2.9 mm), whereas injection leads to anterograde movement ranging from 0.6 to 4.1 mm (mean, 1.9 mm). Double-handed aspiration is associated with less needle tip movement than single-handed aspiration (P = 0.037). Greater experience is also associated less movement of the needle tip (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In all cases, the aspiration and injecting maneuver is associated with micromovements of the needle tip, of a magnitude consistently significant relative to the typical size of facial vessels. Although needle tip movement is only a single factor limiting the usefulness of the aspiration test, the results of this study suggest that it is not advisable to rely only on aspiration as a method to prevent intravascular injection.

Aspiration Before Tissue Filler-An Exercise in Futility and Unsafe Practice.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic physicians rely on certain anecdotal beliefs regarding the safe practice of filler injections. These include a presumed safety advantage of bolus injection after a negative aspiration. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to review and summarize the published literature on inadvertent intravascular injection of hyaluronic acid and to investigate whether the technique of aspiration confers any safety to the practitioner and the patient. METHODS: Pertinent literature was analyzed and the current understanding of the safety of negative and positive aspiration outlined. RESULTS: The available studies demonstrate that aspiration cannot be relied on and should not be employed as a safety measure. It is safer to adopt injection techniques that avoid injecting an intravascular volume with embolic potential than utilize an unreliable test to permit a risky injection. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent intravascular injection, understanding "injection anatomy" and injection plane and techniques such as slow, low-pressure injection are important safety measures. Assurance of safety when delivering a bolus after negative aspiration does not appear to be borne out by the available literature. If there is any doubt about the sensitivity or reliability of a negative aspiration, there is no role for its utilization. Achieving a positive aspiration would just defer the risk to the next injection location where a negative aspiration would then be relied on.

Why we should be avoiding periorificial mimetic muscles when injecting tissue fillers.

BACKGROUND: Tissue fillers are generally safe and well tolerated by patients. However, complications do occur and may be very severe, such as intravascular injection (with occasional residual tissue loss, visual and neurological sequelae) and late nodularity and swelling. Methods to lessen the likelihood of complications have been the subject of much recent literature. Depth of injection has been identified as a key safety consideration. PATIENTS/METHODS: The role of injection of facial filler into the muscular layer of the face is explored in this article. Literature was explored using available search facilities to study the role of injections in or around this layer in the production of significant adverse reactions. RESULTS: A body of literature seems to suggest that injection into mimetic musculature of the face especially the musculature in the periorbital and perioral regions is prone to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of agents into the perioral and periorbital mimetic muscular layer may produce, product clumping, displacement, and tendency to late nodularity and swelling. It also risks intravascular injection as compared to injection of other layers of the face. Injection into the mimetic muscles especially the sphincteric muscles should be avoided to minimize the risk of complications.

A Consensus on Minimizing the Risk of Hyaluronic Acid Embolic Visual Loss and Suggestions for Immediate Bedside Management.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid fillers have a satisfactory safety profile. However, adverse reactions do occur, and rarely intravascular injection may lead to blindness. Currently there is no internationally recognized consensus on the prevention or management of blindness from hyaluronic acid filler. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to give guidance on how to minimize the risk and optimize the management of this rare but catastrophic adverse reaction. METHODS: A multinational group of experts in cosmetic injectables from multiple disciplines convened to review current best practice and develop updated consensus recommendations for prevention and bedside intervention if visual loss occurs after cosmetic injection of hyaluronic acid filler. RESULTS: The consensus group provided specific recommendations focusing on the consenting process, prevention, and early management of visual impairment related to intravascular hyaluronic acid filler injection. CONCLUSIONS: Although visual loss due to filler injections is rare, it is important that both patient and physician be aware of this risk. In this paper the authors describe methods and techniques available to reduce the risk and also document suggested initial management should a clinician find themselves in this situation.