Cosmetic penile enhancement procedures: an SMSNA position statement.

BACKGROUND: Penile cosmetic enhancement procedures have been performed for many years with varying success. However, they have historically been relegated to niche areas of sexual medicine, with limited data, and have not achieved mainstream adoption. More recently, the topic has been increasingly discussed within academic congresses due to availability of novel techniques, therapies, and procedures. Given their distinctive nature, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) felt that it was pertinent to develop formal position statements to help guide both patients and sexual medicine providers on the current state of the scientific literature and to give recommendations for future research. AIM: The study sought to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for injection and surgical procedures designed to lengthen, augment, or otherwise cosmetically enhance the penis. METHODS: A review was performed of all scientific literature listed in PubMed from inception through December 2023 relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Only invasive (injection/surgery) therapies were included due to their distinct risk-benefit profile compared with more conservative treatments (eg, vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices). Similar therapies were categorized, with pertinent data summarized and used to help create relevant position statements. All statements were expert opinion only and were based on analyses of the potential risks and benefits of the specific therapies. OUTCOMES: A total of 6 position statements were issued relating to 5 distinct sexual medicine cosmetic enhancement procedures. RESULTS: A consensus opinion was reached by SMSNA leadership on the state of injection/surgical penile cosmetic enhancement procedures as of 2024. Key topic areas addressed included injectable soft tissue fillers, suspensory ligament division, graft-and-flap procedures, silicone sleeve implants, and sliding/slicing techniques. Distinct recommendations were tailored to each therapy and were based solely on the current state of the literature. It is anticipated that future studies will further inform position statements and will lead to ongoing modifications. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The current position statements provide both patients and clinicians evidence-based, expert recommendations on best practices relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths include the use of an expert panel of sexual medicine clinicians, consensus design, and summary of existing literature. Limitations include expert opinion and limited research on the topic. CONCLUSION: The current SMSNA position statements provide evidence-based, consensus opinions on the appropriate role for penile augmentation and cosmetic procedures in 2024.

Cosmetic outcomes after transoral robotic thyroidectomy: Comparison with transaxillary, postauricular, and conventional approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Transoral thyroidectomy does not involve neck incision, and its postoperative cosmetic outcome is thought to be superior to that of conventional thyroidectomy and other remote-access procedures. This study aimed to compare the cosmetic outcomes between transoral robotic thyroidectomy (TORT) and conventional transcervical thyroidectomy and two common remote-access robotic thyroidectomies via the transaxillary and postauricular approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 160 patients who underwent TORT, robotic thyroidectomies via the transaxillary or postauricular approach, or conventional transcervical thyroidectomy (40 patients in each group). The postoperative cosmetic outcomes, including cosmetic satisfaction and scar consciousness scores, were evaluated using self-assessment cosmesis questionnaires at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The cosmesis index was defined as the sum of the percentage scores for cosmetic satisfaction and scar consciousness. RESULTS: Cosmetic satisfaction scores, scar consciousness scores, and cosmesis indexes were significantly higher for the transoral, transaxillary, and postauricular approaches than the conventional approach at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. There was a trend of better cosmetic outcomes, especially regarding scar consciousness, for the transoral and transaxillary approaches than for the postauricular approach, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Postoperative cosmesis of TORT, as well as the transaxillary and postauricular approaches, is superior to that of conventional thyroidectomy. The cosmetic outcomes of the transoral and transaxillary approaches seem to be better than those of the postauricular approach.

Re Facial aesthetic injections in clinical practice: Pretreatment and post-treatment consensus recommendations to minimise adverse outcome Region-specific changes in line with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite the recent publication in March 2020 of guidelines for facial injectable treatments, the speed of the COVID-19 pandemic and its safety implications necessitate changes to these guidelines The authors described what would constitute safest practice in the provision of facial injectable treatments and summarised these in table form. Adherence to a high standard of asepsis and infectious disease precautions remain a key patient safety requirement when performing facial aesthetic injections. A revision and update of these guideline summary tables follows. Changes made should enhance both patient and staff safety regarding COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, a highly infective respiratory pathogen transmitted by respiratory droplets, respiratory/mucosal secretions and contaminated fomites. Some of the additions are COVID-19 specific and are likely to evolve and change, particularly should serological tests determining acquired immunity become available. Other additions represent further tightening of our infection control precautions.

Safety guidelines for nonsurgical facial procedures during COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is expected to last for an extended time, making strict safety precautions for office procedures unavoidable. The lockdown is going to be lifted in many areas, and strict guidelines detailing the infection control measures for aesthetic clinics are going to be of particular importance. METHODS: A virtual meeting was conducted with the members (n = 12) of the European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery Focus Group to outline the safety protocol for the nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures for aesthetic practices in order to protect the clinic staff and the patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data analysis was undertaken by thematic and iterative approach. RESULTS: Consensus guidelines for nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures based on current knowledge are provided for three levels: precautions before visiting the clinic, precautions during the clinic visit, and precautions after the clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Sound infection control measures are mandatory for nonsurgical aesthetic practices all around the world. These may vary from country to country, but this logical approach can be customized according to the respective country laws and guidelines.

Re-examining the Optimal Use of Neuromodulators and the Changing Landscape: A Consensus Panel Update

Since initial US Food and Drug Administration approval of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for aesthetic use in 2002, clinical evidence and experience with BoNT-A and understanding of facial anatomy have greatly increased, leading to rapid advances in treatment planning and implementation. BoNT-A use has expanded from the upper face to the midface, lower face, and neck, so that BoNT-A injection is the most common cosmetic procedure worldwide. Trends in facial aesthetics reflect growing patient diversity with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity. In October 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of 6 experts in minimally invasive injectable procedures in the specialties of dermatology and plastic surgery convened at the 2019 American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) meeting in Chicago, IL. Their goal was to discuss recent advances in BoNT-A use in facial aesthetics, including implications of the introduction of new agents in light of an evolving patient population. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(4 Suppl 1):s5-15 To receive a CME certificate of participation, you should: •Read the entire publication, including the CME information. •Register or log in at www.paradigmmc.com/822 to complete and submit the online posttest and evaluation. Following online completion of the posttest and evaluation, a certificate of participation will be available for download/printing immediately.

New Classification Schemata of Hypersensitivity Adverse Effects After Hyaluronic Acid Injections: Pathophysiology, Treatment Algorithm, and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Side effects during hyaluronic acid (HA) injection are considered mild and reversible; however, an alarming trend of increased hypersensitivity reactions has recently been reported. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article is to review the hypersensitivity reactions reported in the literature and, in combination with the authors' experience, to create a classification system to sort the timing and clinical manifestations of these reactions, as well as a treatment schema to manage their clinical course. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase databases was performed with no date restrictions. Search terms included "hyaluronic acid and hypersensitivity" and "hyaluronic acid and nodules." Data analyzed included study type, number of subjects, HA filler type, injection location, adverse reaction, timing, treatment, and outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were identified, documenting hypersensitivity reactions to HA treatment. Twelve cases described events occurring within a week, 6 within a month, and 31 after a month of treatment. Combined with the authors' experience, a new classification system and management of hypersensitivity reactions to HA fillers is proposed of early (up to a week), intermediate (a week to a month), and late (over a month) hypersensitivity reactions. CONCLUSION: The classification system proposed provides objective measurements and management options that can be helpful for physicians to navigate these hypersensitivity reactions and design treatment protocols that provide the best clinical outcomes for their patients.

Oily sensitive skin: A review of management options.

BACKGROUND: Due to the ever-increasing demands for the personalized care, people seek for the tailored management according to the accurate identification of their skin type. The Baumann Skin Type Indicator, which was proposed by Leslie Baumann, is composed of four parameters: oily or dry, resistant or sensitive, pigmented or nonpigmented, and wrinkled or tight. Among these, oily sensitive skin experiences significant discomfort and resists ordinary treatment. AIMS: In this article, we will review the clinical manifestations, underlying pathogenesis and recommendations on treatment options that may be utilized to help patients with oily sensitive skin. PATIENTS/METHODS: Literature search was conducted using PubMed. The literature concerning Baumann Skin Type Indicator and oily sensitive skin type were considered. RESULTS: Oily sensitive (OS)-type skin is a complex of oily and sensitive skin that causes significant discomfort and undergoes stubborn resistance to treatments. Sebum dysfunction and hypersensitivity may play a key role in the development of sensitive skin. Considering the pathogenesis of OS-type skin, treatment should focus on both seborrhea and hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can effectively treat the oily sensitive skin by understanding underlying pathogenesis of it. Further investigations are necessary to reach a consensus on the basic pathophysiology and optimal management guidelines for oily sensitive skin.

Experiences With Medical Spas and Associated Complications: A Survey of Aesthetic Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Medical spas have experienced a recent rise in popularity. However, rules and regulations vary nationwide. Given the number of complications attributable to medical spas, questions remain about currently regulatory practices and whether they are sufficient to protect patients from harm. OBJECTIVE: Our study investigated the current state of medical spas and their associated patient complications in the aesthetic field as well as the experiences and attitudes of practitioners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was distributed to current members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. RESULTS: Of all cosmetic complications encountered in the past 2 years, the majority reported that the percentage of complications seen in their practice attributable to medical spas ranged from 61% to 100%. The most commonly cited complications from medical spas were burn, discoloration, and misplacement of product, whereas the most commonly cited treatments resulting in complications were fillers, intense pulsed light, and laser hair removal. For safety and outcomes, medical spas were rated as inferior to physician-based practices. CONCLUSION: Patient complications associated with medical spas are not uncommon. Overall, practitioners believe medical spas are endangering to patient safety, think that stricter rules and regulations are necessary, and request more support from the specialty medical societies.

Single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery comparing long-term patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies and meta-analysis showed Single-port or Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SPL) to be superior over Multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPL) mainly in terms of postoperative pain and cosmetic result. But very little is known whether these results are only a short-term effect or are persistent on the long run after SPL. We therefore evaluated and compared long-term outcomes regarding cosmesis and chronic pain after SPL and MPL. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study with propensity score matching of all patients undergoing SPL or MPL between October 2008 and December 2013 in terms of postoperative cosmetic results and chronic pain. Follow-up data were obtained from mailed patient questionnaires and telephone interviews. Postoperative cosmesis was assessed using the patients overall scar opinion on a 10-point scale and the Patients scale of the standardized Patient and Observer Scar assessment scale (POSAS). Chronic pain was assessed by 10-point scales for abdominal and umbilical scar pain. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were included in the study with 188 patients (67.1%) after SPL and 92 patients (32.9%) following MPL. 141 patients (50.4%) underwent a cholecystectomy and 139 patients (49.6%) underwent an appendectomy. The mean follow-up time was 61.1 ± 19.1 months. The mean wound satisfaction assed by the overall scar and the PSOAS Patients scale score of the patients showed no significant difference between MPL and SPL. Patients after SPL reported more overall complains than after MPL (8.7% vs. 2.5%, respectively), but without statistical significance (p = 0.321). Umbilical pain scores were comparable between the two groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.831). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes after SPL and MPL. Chronic pain at the umbilical incision site was comparable on the long run.

Experiences With Counterfeit Aesthetic Medical Devices and Injectables: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Counterfeit medical devices and injectables have recently garnered interest in the field of aesthetics. Unlike their original counterparts, these counterfeit products have neither been tested nor verified using certified quality control measures. OBJECTIVE: Our study investigated the pervasiveness of counterfeit products in the field as well as the experiences and attitudes of practitioners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to current members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) and the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). RESULTS: For medical devices, 37.4% have encountered counterfeits and 20.1% have experienced patients with adverse events from them. For injectables, 41.1% have encountered counterfeits and 39.7% have experienced patients with adverse events from them. Compared with their original, most respondents believe that counterfeits are worse in terms of reliability, safety, and effectiveness. The majority also believe that counterfeits are either very or extremely endangering to patient safety. CONCLUSION: Counterfeit medical devices and injectables are not uncommonly encountered. Overall, practitioners believe counterfeits are endangering patient safety and result in adverse events and think that either stricter rules and regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations is necessary.

Maximizing Panfacial Aesthetic Outcomes: Findings and Recommendations From the HARMONY Study.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic medicine has evolved from targeting individual treatment areas to a global approach of panfacial rejuvenation. HARMONY was the first clinical study to systematically demonstrate positive physical and psychosocial impacts of panfacial treatment. OBJECTIVE: Provide evidence-based guidance on treatment strategies to help maximize outcomes in patients seeking panfacial rejuvenation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study sites with the lowest (n = 2) and highest (n = 2) improvements based on FACE-Q Satisfaction with Face Overall scores were analyzed to understand differences in treatment strategy that may contribute to incrementally greater patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The highest scoring sites exhibited greater improvement in all patient-reported outcomes and investigator-assessed measures related to dermal filler treatment compared with the lowest scoring sites. The highest sites favored lateral malar augmentation and used less volume medially versus the lowest sites. In the lower face, the highest sites used greater volumes and more HYC-24L than HYC-24L+. Initial treatment volumes were more conservative at highest than lowest sites; greater volumes were used by highest sites in touch-up treatments. CONCLUSION: Product usage trends common to the highest scoring sites (including injection volume, injection sites, and product selection) may provide guidance on best practices for a panfacial approach to aesthetic treatment to maximize patient satisfaction.

Nonphysician Practice of Cosmetic Dermatology: A Patient and Physician Perspective of Outcomes and Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Nonphysicians are expanding practice into specialty medicine. There are limited studies on patient and physician perspectives as well as safety outcomes regarding the nonphysician practice of cosmetic procedures. OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient (consumer) and physician perspective on preferences, adverse events, and outcomes following cosmetic dermatology procedures performed by physicians and nonphysicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Internet-based surveys were administered to consumers of cosmetic procedures and physician members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. Descriptive statistics and graphical methods were used to assess responses. Comparisons between groups were based on contingency chi-square analyses and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixteen commenced the patient survey with 401 having had a cosmetic procedure performed. Fifty adverse events were reported. A higher number of burns and discoloration occurred in the nonphysician-treated group and took place more often in a spa setting. Individuals seeing nonphysicians cited motivating factors such as level of licensure (type) of nonphysician, a referral from a friend, price, and the location of the practitioner. Improper technique by the nonphysician was cited most as a reason for the adverse event. Both groups agree that more regulation should be placed on who can perform cosmetic procedures. Recall bias associated with survey data. CONCLUSION: Patients treated by nonphysicians experienced more burns and discoloration compared with physicians, and they are encountering these nonphysicians outside a traditional medical office, which are important from a patient safety and regulatory standpoint. Motivating factors for patients seeking cosmetic procedures may also factor into the choice of provider. KEY POINTS: Both patients and physicians think more regulation should be in place on who can perform cosmetic procedures. More adverse events such as burns and discolorations occurred with patients seeing nonphysicians compared with those seeing physicians. In addition, for those seeing nonphysicians, a majority of these encounters took place in spa settings. Patient safety is of utmost concern when it comes to elective cosmetic medical procedures. More adverse events and encounters occurring outside traditional medical settings when nonphysicians performed these procedures call into question the required training and oversight needed for such procedures.