Bibliometric Patent Review of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This study analyzes patents associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) found on the Lens open online platform. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to provide an overview of the most referenced patents in the field of MISS and to uncover patterns in the evolution and categorization of these patents. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MISS has rapidly progressed, with a core focus on minimizing surgical damage, preserving the natural anatomy, and enabling swift recovery, all while achieving outcomes that rival traditional open surgery. While prior studies have primarily concentrated on MISS outcomes, the analysis of MISS patents has been limited. METHODS: To conduct this study, we used the Lens platform to search for patents that included the terms "minimally invasive" and "spine" in their titles, abstracts, or claims. We then categorized these patents and identified the top 100 with the most forward citations. We further classified these patents into 4 categories: Spinal Stabilization Systems, Joint Implants or Procedures, Screw Delivery System or Method, and Access and Surgical Pathway Formation. RESULTS: Five hundred two MISS patents were identified initially, and 276 were retained following a screening process. Among the top 100 patents, the majority had active legal status. The largest category within the top 100 patents was Access and Surgical Pathway Formation, closely followed by Spinal Stabilization Systems and Joint Implants or Procedures. The smallest category was Screw Delivery System or Method. Notably, the majority of the top 100 patents had priority years falling between 2000 and 2009, indicating a moderate positive correlation between patent rank and priority year. CONCLUSIONS: Thus far, patents related to Access and Surgical Pathway Formation have laid the foundation for subsequent innovations in Spinal Stabilization Systems and Screw Technology. This study serves as a valuable resource for guiding future innovations in this rapidly evolving field.

Minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy versus the anterior transcorporeal approach for cervical radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical decompression is often indicated for symptomatic cases of cervical radiculopathy. In the cervical spine, minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MIS-PCF) and the anterior transcorporeal approach (ATCA) are modern techniques available to surgeons. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aimed to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes of MIS-PCF and ATCA for cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using 1) Ovid; 2) Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and 3) Scopus databases, which reported outcomes following cervical decompression using MIS-PCF or the ATCA. Specifically, baseline characteristics, operative outcomes, and changes in visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score were assessed. The quality of the studies was graded using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: Forty studies with 1661 patients were identified. The comparative analysis of both techniques revealed no significant differences in complication (7%, 95% CI 5%-10%, p = 0.75) or reoperation rates (5%, 95% CI 3%-7%, p = 0.41). Additionally, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss (55.39, 95% CI 44.62-66.16 ml, p = 0.55) or operative time (85.15, 95% CI 65.38-104.92 minutes, p = 0.05). The ATCA showed significantly greater improvement (p < 0.01) in VAS neck pain scores following surgery (ATCA point reduction 6.7, 95% CI 6.0-7.5 points vs MIS-PCF 3.0, 95% CI 1.0-5.0 points). CONCLUSIONS: The ATCA and MIS-PCF are effective modern techniques for the surgical treatment of radiculopathy. Both approaches showed comparable postoperative outcomes, including complication and reoperation rates. However, the ATCA was shown to provide significantly greater improvement in VAS neck pain scores.

Is Limited English Proficiency Associated With Differences in Care Processes and Treatment Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency. Current developments in orthopaedic surgery, such as the expansion of preoperative education classes or patient-reported outcome collection in response to bundled payment models, may exacerbate language-related barriers. Currently, there are mixed findings of the associations between limited English proficiency and care processes and outcomes, warranting a cross-study synthesis to identify patterns of associations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: Is limited English proficiency associated with (1) differences in clinical care processes, (2) differences in care processes related to patient engagement, and (3) poorer treatment outcomes in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in English-speaking countries? METHODS: On June 9, 2023, a systematic search of four databases from inception through the search date (PubMed, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) was performed by a medical librarian. Potentially eligible articles were observational studies that examined the association between limited English proficiency and the prespecified categories of outcomes among pediatric and adult patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery or receiving care in an orthopaedic surgery setting. We identified 10,563 records, of which we screened 6966 titles and abstracts after removing duplicates. We reviewed 56 full-text articles and included 29 peer-reviewed studies (outcome categories: eight for clinical care processes, 10 for care processes related to patient engagement, and 15 for treatment outcomes), with a total of 362,746 patients or encounters. We extracted data elements including study characteristics, definition of language exposure, specific outcomes, and study results. The quality of each study was evaluated using adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scales for cohort or cross-sectional studies. Most studies had a low (48%) or moderate (45%) risk of bias, but two cross-sectional studies had a high risk of bias. To answer our questions, we synthesized associations and no-difference findings, further stratified by adjusted versus unadjusted estimates, for each category of outcomes. No meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were mixed findings regarding whether limited English proficiency is associated with differences in clinical care processes, with the strongest adjusted associations between non-English versus English as the preferred language and delayed ACL reconstruction surgery and receipt of neuraxial versus general anesthesia for other non-Spanish versus English primary language in patients undergoing THA or TKA. Limited English proficiency was also associated with increased hospitalization costs for THA or TKA but not opioid prescribing in pediatric patients undergoing surgery for fractures. For care processes related to patient engagement, limited English proficiency was consistently associated with decreased patient portal use and decreased completion of patient-reported outcome measures per adjusted estimates. The exposure was also associated with decreased virtual visit completion for other non-Spanish versus English language and decreased postoperative opioid refill requests after TKA but not differences in attendance-related outcomes. For treatment outcomes, limited English proficiency was consistently associated with increased hospital length of stay and nonhome discharge per adjusted estimates, but not hospital returns. There were mixed findings regarding associations with increased complications and worse postoperative patient-reported outcome measure scores. CONCLUSION: Findings specifically suggest the need to remove language-based barriers for patients to engage in care, including for patient portal use and patient-reported outcome measure completion, and to identify mechanisms and solutions for increased postoperative healthcare use. However, interpretations are limited by the heterogeneity of study parameters, including the language exposure. Future research should include more-precise and transparent definitions of limited English proficiency and contextual details on available language-based resources to support quantitative syntheses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Performance of a Large Language Model in the Generation of Clinical Guidelines for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT's 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. METHODS: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT's GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model's performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model's responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a review.

PURPOSE: Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) remains the most common type of pediatric scoliosis, mostly affecting children between ages 10 and 18. Vertebral body tethering (VBT) offers a non-fusion alternative to the gold standard spinal fusion that permits flexibility and some growth within instrumented segments. This article will serve as a comprehensive literature review of the current state-of-the-art of VBT in relation to radiographic and clinical outcomes, complications, and the learning curve associated with the procedure. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from April 2002 to December 2022. Studies were included if they discussed VBT and consisted of clinical studies in which a minimum 2-years follow-up was reported, and series that included anesthetic considerations, learning curve, and early operative morbidity. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies spanning the period from April 2002 to December 2022 were reviewed. CONCLUSION: This article illustrates the potential benefits and challenges of the surgical treatment of AIS with VBT and can serve as a basis for the further study and refinement of this technique ideally as a living document that will be updated regularly.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Spinal Surgery: A Comparative National Analysis of Reimbursement Trends Over 10 Years.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011-2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.

Comparative outcomes of awake spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake surgery, under spinal anesthesia (SA), is an alternative to surgery under general anesthesia (GA), in neurological and spine surgery. In the literature, there seem to be some evidence supporting benefits associated with the use of this anesthetic modality, as compared to GA. Currently, there is a notable lack of updated and comprehensive review addressing the complications associated with both awake SA and GA in spine surgery. We hence aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the topic. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that assessed SA in spine surgery from database inception to April 14, 2023, in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative time, and overall complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies that assessed 7820 patients were included. The majority of the operations that were treated with SA were single-level lumbar cases. Awake patients had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay (Mean difference (MD): - 0.40 days; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.17) and operative time (MD: - 19.17 min; 95% CI - 29.68 to - 8.65) compared to patients under GA. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients under GA than SA (RR, 0.59 [95% CI 0.47-0.74]). Patients under GA had significantly higher rates of postoperative nausea/vomiting RR, 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.90]) and urinary retention (RR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.37-0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing awake spine surgery under SA had significantly shorter operations and hospital stays, and fewer rates of postoperative nausea and urinary retention as compared to GA. In summary, awake spine surgery offers a valid alternative to GA and added benefits in terms of postsurgical complications, while being associated with relatively low morbidity.

Thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an analysis of ChatGPT recommendations.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Venous thromboembolism is a negative outcome of elective spine surgery. However, the use of thromboembolic chemoprophylaxis in this patient population is controversial due to the possible increased risk of epidural hematoma. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence model which may be able to generate recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Comparative analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy, over-conclusiveness, supplemental, and incompleteness of ChatGPT responses compared to the North American Spine Society (NASS) clinical guidelines. METHODS: ChatGPT was prompted with questions from the 2009 NASS clinical guidelines for antithrombotic therapies and evaluated for concordance with the clinical guidelines. ChatGPT-3.5 responses were obtained on March 5, 2023, and ChatGPT-4.0 responses were obtained on April 7, 2023. A ChatGPT response was classified as accurate if it did not contradict the clinical guideline. Three additional categories were created to further evaluate the ChatGPT responses in comparison to the NASS guidelines: over-conclusiveness, supplementary, and incompleteness. ChatGPT was classified as over-conclusive if it made a recommendation where the NASS guideline did not provide one. ChatGPT was classified as supplementary if it included additional relevant information not specified by the NASS guideline. ChatGPT was classified as incomplete if it failed to provide relevant information included in the NASS guideline. RESULTS: Twelve clinical guidelines were evaluated in total. Compared to the NASS clinical guidelines, ChatGPT-3.5 was accurate in 4 (33%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was accurate in 11 (92%) responses. ChatGPT-3.5 was over-conclusive in 6 (50%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was over-conclusive in 1 (8%) response. ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplemental information in 8 (67%) of its responses, and ChatGPT-4.0 provided supplemental information in 11 (92%) responses. Four (33%) responses from ChatGPT-3.5 were incomplete, and 4 (33%) responses from ChatGPT-4.0 were incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT was able to provide recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis with reasonable accuracy. ChatGPT-3.5 tended to cite nonexistent sources and was more likely to give specific recommendations while ChatGPT-4.0 was more conservative in its answers. As ChatGPT is continuously updated, further validation is needed before it can be used as a guideline for clinical practice.

Socioeconomic and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Perception of Health Status and Literacy in Spine Oncological Patients: Insights from the All of Us Research Program.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed using the National Institutes of Health All of Us survey database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess socioeconomic and racial disparities in the perception of personal health, health literacy, and healthcare access among spine oncology patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health literacy and perception of health status have been described for many disease processes. However, few studies have assessed the prevalence of these disparities among spine oncology patients. METHODS: Adult spine oncology patients, identified using ICD-9/10-CM codes, were categorized by race/ethnicity: White/Caucasian (WC), Black/African-American (BAA), and Non-White Hispanic (NWH). Demographics and socioeconomic status were assessed. Questionnaire responses regarding baseline health status, perception of health status, health literacy, and barriers to healthcare were compared. RESULTS: Of the 1,175 patients identified, 207 (17.6%) were BAA, 267 (22.7%) were NWH, and 701 (59.7%) were WC. Socioeconomic status varied among cohorts, with WC patients reporting higher levels of education ( P<0.001 ), annual income greater than $50K ( P<0.001 ), and home ownership ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH patients reported greater rates of 7-day "Severe fatigue" ( P<0.001 ) and "10/10 pain" ( P<0.001 ) and lower rates of "Completely" able to perform everyday activities ( P<0.001 ). WC patients had a higher response rate for "Excellent/Very Good" regarding their own general health ( P<0.001 ) and quality ( P<0.001 ). The WC cohort had a significantly higher proportion of patients responding "Never" when assessing difficulty understanding ( P<0.001 ) and needing assistance with health materials ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH were significantly less likely to report feeling "Extremely" confident with medical forms ( P<0.001 ). BAA and NWH had significantly higher response rates to feeling "Somewhat Worried" about healthcare costs ( P<0.001 ) and with delaying medical care given "Can't Afford Co-pay" ( P<0.001 ). CONCLUSION: We identified disparities in perception of health status, literacy, and access among spine oncology patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction in Multilevel Cervical Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In multisegment cervical arthrodeses, a common clinical dilemma for the surgeon is whether to extend the fusion past the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ). This meta-analysis compares clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters when crossing and not crossing the CTJ. METHODS: Our outcomes of interest included overall reoperation, successful fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD) leading to revision surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay (LOS). We also studied the postoperative change in radiologic parameters-cervical sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis, and T1 slope-and change in Neck Disability Index and neck pain in Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1720 patients were included. There were 974 (56.6%) patients in the noncrossing group and 746 (43.4%) patients in the crossing group. Noncrossing was associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation (risk ratio = 1.56; 95% CI: 0.98-2.47) and ASD requiring revision surgery (risk ratio = 2.82; 95% CI: 1.33-5.98; number-needed-to-harm = 22). The noncrossing group had lower EBL by 175 mL and shorter LOS by 1 day; the latter finding was only trending toward statistical significance. Successful fusion and changes in cervical sagittal vertical axis, cervical lordosis, Neck Disability Index, and Visual Analog Scale were not different between the 2 groups at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS: In multilevel cervical arthrodesis, not crossing the CTJ is associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation and ASD requiring reoperation than crossing the CTJ, along with lower EBL and LOS. Differences in successful fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and sagittal radiologic parameters were not significant.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the management of carotid artery disease.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. METHODS: We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing five questions: medical management vs carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high-risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. RESULTS: Medical management compared with carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low-risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with a lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in myocardial infarction compared with CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that, over the long term, CEA has a superior outcome compared with transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day 14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from peripheral artery disease, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared with a combined carotid intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, had better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated evidence summary supports the Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in the long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2 and 14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

Single-level awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a Mayo Clinic institutional experience and national analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Awake transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a novel technique for performing spinal fusions in patients under conscious sedation. Whether awake TLIF can reduce operative times and decrease the hospital length of stay (LOS) remains to be shown. In this study, the authors sought to assess the differences in clinical outcomes between patients who underwent awake TLIF and those who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia by using institutional experience at the Mayo Clinic and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: Chart review was performed for a consecutive series of patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-TLIF performed by a single surgeon (K.A.I.) at a single institution. Additionally, the NSQIP database was queried from 2016 to 2019 for patients who underwent awake TLIF as well as propensity score-matched patients who underwent TLIF under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients at Mayo Clinic underwent awake single-level MIS-TLIF. The mean operative time was 122 ± 16.68 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 39 ± 30.24 ml. No intraoperative complications were reported. A total of 96 patients who underwent TLIF (24 awake and 72 under general anesthesia) were analyzed from the NSQIP database. The mean LOS was less in the awake cohort (1.4 ± 1.381 days) than the general anesthesia cohort (3 ± 2.274 days) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the authors' institutional experience and national analysis has demonstrated that awake MIS-TLIF is efficient and can reduce hospital LOS.

A Systematic Review Supporting the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Guidelines on the Prevention and Treatment of Adverse Events of Injectable Fillers.

BACKGROUND: As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS: The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1-2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%-80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION: Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.