RESUMEN
Background: Global facial rejuvenation using injectables (neuromodulators and fillers) has reported patient satisfaction after 2 treatments: an initial and touch-up treatment at 2-4 weeks afterward. In practice, patients typically receive only 1 treatment and do not return for a touch-up treatment within a month. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess patient-reported satisfaction after only 1 treatment, thus mimicking real-world scenarios. Methods: Patients with facial photoaging (Glogau facial aging scale ≥2) were treated with calcium hydroxyapatite, hyaluronic acid 22.5 mg/mL, and incobotulinumtoxinA injections for full facial rejuvenation, with no touch-up treatments. Patients completed the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Facial Appearance survey at baseline and 1- and 3-month post-treatment. The treating physician completed the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale at 1- and 3-month post-treatment. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in the study, with 1 patient lost to follow-up. There was a significant improvement in mean FACE-Q scores at 1-month (80.1, P = .01) and 3-month (77.9, P = .02) compared to baseline (71.4). Mean Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores at 1-month (2.1) and 3-month (2.2) were not statistically significant, indicating sustained improvement at 3 months. The product amount used per patient varied and was not correlated with either score. Limitations included a lack of a control group and follow-up ending at 3 months. Strengths included assessment of patient satisfaction after only 1 treatment, compared to other studies allowing 2 treatments. Limitations: Limitations include a small sample size and lack of a control group. Conclusion: Global full facial rejuvenation using 1 treatment of calcium hydroxyapatite, hyaluronic acid 22.5 mg/mL, and incobotulinumtoxinA provides sustained patient-reported satisfaction at 3 months.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With a rise in demand for cosmetic dermatologic procedures comes an increase in nonphysician providers performing such procedures. However, little is known about the practice of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in the practice of cosmetic procedures provided by physicians and nonphysicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed using participant ( n = 4,062) responses to an 18-point, web-based survey about previous cosmetic procedures. RESULTS: In total, 1,328 participants reported having previous cosmetic procedures done by a physician ( n = 828), a nonphysician ( n = 413), or an unknown provider ( n = 87). Respondents of all age ranges and male respondents ( p < .001) tended to choose physicians over nonphysician providers when choosing a practice. Moderate adverse events were more frequently seen when nonphysician providers completed cosmetic procedures ( p < .001). Despite a higher frequency (73.3% vs 51.8%) of more moderate complications seen in procedures done by nonphysician providers, over 70% of respondents believe that nonphysician providers are qualified enough to continue performing cosmetic procedures. CONCLUSION: People should be encouraged to make an informed decision when choosing a provider because cosmetic procedures are still considered medical procedures.
