Imaging Features and Complications of Facial Cosmetic Procedures.

Facial aesthetic procedures have become increasingly popular and complex, making knowledge of facial anatomy crucial for achieving desired outcomes without complications. Some of the most common procedures include blepharoplasty, bichectomy, face-lifts, facial implants, thread lifting, and fillers. Blepharoplasty and bichectomy are surgical procedures that respectively aim to restore youthful contours to the periorbita and create a slimmer lower face by removing Bichat fat from the maxillofacial region. Facial implants are used for aesthetic augmentation of the skeletal structure and restoration of facial contour by using biomaterials or autogenous bone grafts. Face-lift surgeries involve incisions and removal of excess skin, and thread lifts involve less invasive procedures performed by inserting threads beneath the skin, with the aim to lift the skin and thus reduce wrinkles and sagging. Fillers improve wrinkles and loss of facial volume, with biologic types made from animal, human, or bacterial sources (such as hyaluronic acid), while synthetic fillers include substances such as paraffin, silicone, calcium hydroxyapatite, polymethylmethacrylate microspheres, polyacrylamide hydrogel, hydroxyethyl-ethyl methacrylate, and poly-l-lactic acid. Synthetic fillers can be classified as rapidly resorbable (<12 months), slowly resorbable (<24 months), or permanent. Imaging modalities such as US, CT, and MRI can help identify and analyze each type of facial aesthetic procedure or filler, as well as their possible complications such as foreign-body granuloma, noninflammatory nodule, late intermittent persistent edema, filler migration, infection, or complications after removal of the buccal fat pad. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center The online slide presentation from the RSNA Annual Meeting is available for this article.

Extra-pituitary midline structural abnormalities associated with ectopic posterior pituitary detected on a new rapid MRI protocol (FAST1.2)

ABSTRACT Objective: Test if the MRI FAST1.2 protocol can detect extra-pituitary midline structural brain abnormalities in patients with ectopic posterior pituitary (EPP), and highlighting their radiological-laboratory correlations. Subjects and methods: Cross-sectional study of patients with EPP and control group. All individuals were submitted to FAST1.2, which combines the FAST1 protocol developed by our group with 3D T2DRIVE imaging. Results: We evaluated 36 individuals with EPP and 78 as control group. Pituitary stalk (PS) was identified in 7/36 patients in EPP group by FAST1, and in 24/36 patients in FAST1.2 (p < 0.001). FAST1 failed to detect PS in one individual in the control group, while the FAST1.2 defined the PS in all individuals. In EPP group, eleven had interhypothalamic adhesion (IHA), three septo-optic dysplasia, and one cerebellar malformation. We didn't observe higher frequency of panhypopituitarism or developmental delay in patients with IHA. In control group, three had pars intermedia cysts, one hydrocephalus, and one hypothalamic hamartoma. Conclusions: FAST1.2 allows confident recognition of midline structural abnormalities, including the pituitary stalk and IHA, thereby making MRI acquisition faster and with no need for contrast administration. IHA could be associated with defects in neuronal migration, as occur in patients with EPP, with no clinical significance.

Adding T2-Weighted Images to FAST1 Protocol to Evaluate the Anatomy of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary Region.

INTRODUCTION: Ectopic posterior pituitary (EPP) is a malformation of the hypothalamic-pituitary region presented as a spectrum from isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD) to multiple pituitary hormone deficiencies (MPHDs). Our goal was to establish whether the FAST1.2 protocol, which combines the FAST1 protocol with 3D-T2 DRIVE images, could identify the pituitary stalk (PS) and the regional anatomy more accurately. METHODS: A retrospective study of 36 individuals with EPP and hypopituitarism and a control group of 78 individuals with eutopic posterior pituitary was conducted. All individuals were submitted to FAST1.2. The position and size of the pituitary lobes were described, and the presence/absence of the PS was confirmed. RESULTS: FAST1 identified the PS in 19% of individuals with EPP, while FAST1.2 identified the PS in 67% (p < 0.001). In the FAST1.2 protocol, the PS was visible in all control individuals. All EPP patients with isolated GHD had visible PS in FAST1.2, while only 58.6% of MPHD cases had visible PS. The size of the anterior lobe and the anteroposterior length of the posterior pituitary were smaller in the EPP group versus controls (p < 0.001). We noticed a reduced anterior pituitary lobe in both diameters in MPHD patients (p < 0.05). Six patients acquired new pituitary hormone deficiencies not recognized at the time of MRI; in this group, only 1 patient had a PS not visible in FAST1.2. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The FAST1.2 protocol could prevent the misdiagnosis of idiopathic GHD in patients with short stature and could also be important in the progression to MPHD. The PS could be considered a predictor of hypopituitarism, but its use as an isolated indicator for the progression to MPHD is not recommended. Our results reinforce the use of the size of the anterior lobe as a predictor of hypopituitarism and a possible predictor of the degree of pituitary insufficiency. The FAST1.2 protocol could be used as an alternative to gadolinium administration, as a cheaper and faster method, while eliminating the potential risks associated with the administration of contrast media.