Update on Blindness From Filler: Review of Prognostic Factors, Management Approaches, and a Century of Published Cases.

BACKGROUND: Vision loss secondary to aesthetic filler treatment is a rare but disastrous complication. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to update the published cases of blindness after filler injection that have occurred since our group published reviews of 98 cases in 2015 and an additional 48 cases in 2019. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify all cases of visual complications caused by filler injection published between September 2018 and March 2023. The cases were analyzed independently and in combination with previously reviewed cases. Analyses are based on the number of cases with data available. RESULTS: 365 new cases of partial or complete vision loss after filler injection were identified. The sites that were highest risk were the nose (40.6%), forehead (27.7%), and glabella (19.0%). The filler injected was hyaluronic acid in 79.6% of cases. The most common associated signs were ptosis (56.2%), ophthalmoplegia (44.1%), pain (31.2%), and skin changes (73.2%). Stroke-like features were seen in 19.2% of cases. Of the cases reporting visual outcomes (318), 6.0% experienced complete vision recovery, 25.8% had partial improvement in visual acuity, and 68.2% had no vision recovery. Partially preserved visual acuity at onset was a significant predictor of visual improvement (p < .001). The three most common treatments were subcutaneous hyaluronidase at or near the filler site (70.1%), systemic steroids (57.3%), and intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy (56.0%). No treatments were significantly associated with visual improvement (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although blindness and stroke from fillers is a rare complication, practitioners who inject filler should have a thorough knowledge of prevention and management strategies.

Embracing Spectrum: Celebrating LGBTQIA+ Journeys in Aesthetic Medicine: A Kaleidoscope of Identity.

PURPOSE: This synaptic systemised review critically examines the provision of aesthetic medical care to LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, asexual, and more) individuals, assessing both the clinical practices and the educational frameworks that guide interactions with LGBTQIA+ patients in aesthetic settings. METHODS: Following PRISMA-S guidelines, a comprehensive review was conducted, initially identifying 159 potentially relevant articles. Upon stringent full-text review, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria and were subject to an in-depth thematic analysis. The scope encompassed qualitative studies, quantitative analyses, and a cross section of interdisciplinary research, predominantly from Western settings. RESULTS: The analysis distilled four principal themes: the imperative of identity affirmation in aesthetic interventions, substantial barriers to inclusive and empathetic care, the critical need for patient empowerment, and the existing deficiencies within medical education regarding LGBTQIA+ care. These themes highlight a complex interplay between the clinical aspirations of LGBTQIA+ individuals and the current capacity of aesthetic medicine to cater to this diversity. CONCLUSIONS: There is a pressing need for a paradigmatic shift towards more inclusive, competent, and sensitive aesthetic medical care for LGBTQIA+ patients. It underscores the necessity of reform in medical education and advocates for policy changes that promote a more equitable healthcare environment. This research serves as a call to action, emphasizing the ethical imperative to integrate comprehensive LGBTQIA+ care competencies into aesthetic medicine curricula and practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

The Efficacy and Duration of Onabotulinum Toxin A in Improving Upper Facial Expression Lines With 64-Unit Dose Optimization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Onabotulinumtoxin A (Onabot A) was the first treatment to be approved for aesthetic indications, namely glabellar lines (GLs), crow's feet lines (CFLs), and forehead lines (FHLs), with a cumulative dose of 64 U. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to combine the available data for approved doses for GLs, CFLs, and FHLs to explore the effect and duration of simultaneous treatment with Onabot A. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and other national clinical trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials from January 2010 to July 2022. The meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and investigator-assessed time to return to nonresponder status in GLs, CFLs, and FHLs following Onabot A were plotted to elicit a cumulative dose-adjusted response curve based on Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test. RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for quantitative analysis. A total of 8369 subjects were recruited across the trials. The meta-analysis results show that Onabot A is very effective in reducing moderate to severe GLs, CFLs, and FHLs. The cumulative Z-curve for GLs, CFLs, and FHLs also exceeds the required information size (RIS). Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test demonstrated that simultaneous treatment of GLs, CFLs, and FHLs requires 182 days (95% CI = 179, 215 days) (P < 0.00002) to return to nonresponder status. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of the upper facial expression lines with Onabot A is effective, and the approved cumulative dose of 64 U gives longer-lasting effects.

Update on Avoiding and Treating Blindness From Fillers: A Recent Review of the World Literature.

BACKGROUND: Sudden loss of vision secondary to filler treatments is a rare but catastrophic complication. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to update the published cases of blindness after filler injection that have occurred since we published our review of 98 cases in 2015, and to discuss prevention and management strategies. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify all cases of visual complications caused by filler injection identified between January 2015 and September 2018. RESULTS: Forty-eight new published cases of partial or complete vision loss after filler injection were identified. The sites that were highest risk were the nasal region (56.3%), glabella (27.1%), forehead (18.8%), and nasolabial fold (14.6%). Hyaluronic acid filler was the cause of this complication in 81.3% of cases. Vision loss, pain, ophthalmoplegia, and ptosis were the most common reported symptoms. Skin changes were seen in 43.8% of cases and central nervous system complications were seen in 18.8% of cases. Ten cases (20.8%) experienced complete recovery of vision, whereas 8 cases (16.7%) reported only partial recovery. Management strategies varied greatly and there were no treatments that were shown to be consistently successful. CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk of blindness from fillers is rare, practitioners who inject filler should have a thorough knowledge of this complication including prevention and management strategies.

Appreciation of the Vascular Anatomy of Aesthetic Forehead Reflation.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the brow is the most common facial site to receive aesthetic treatment. However, the forehead above the brows has been comparatively less well studied with respect to both neuromodulators and fillers. Age-related remodeling of the forehead with loss of facial bone has been demonstrated on detailed radiographic studies. Concurrent loss of facial fat deposits also adds to the volume depletion. The resulting shallow scalloped depressions in the central 2/3 of the forehead give a tired and aged appearance as do the deep etched horizontal forehead lines which are often associated. Temporal hollowing may be an important associated feature. METHODS: Combination treatment of the upper face with neuromodulators to elevate the brows and diluted hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers to smooth the medial glabellar complex and reflate the forehead and temple has recently become a desired and popular treatment. Several techniques have been described in the literature. All these techniques are designed to allow forehead reflation with reduction of the possibility of vascular compromise. CONCLUSION: Avoidance of the supratrochlear and supraorbital vasculature with cosmetic filler injections is possible by insertion of needle or cannula into the subgaleal space above their transition from preperiosteal to subcutaneous level. Using this technique we have so far not seen any vascular compromise and we present this technique in the interest of patient safety.

The Facial Platysma and Its Underappreciated Role in Lower Face Dynamics and Contour.

BACKGROUND: The platysma is a superficial muscle involved in important features of the aging neck. Vertical bands, horizontal lines, and loss of lower face contour are effectively treated with botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A). However, its pars facialis, mandibularis, and modiolaris have been underappreciated. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the role of BoNT-A treatment of the upper platysma and its impact on lower face dynamics and contour. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of cases treated by an injection pattern encompassing the facial platysma components, aiming to block the lower face as a whole complex. It consisted of 2 intramuscular injections into the mentalis muscle and 2 horizontal lines of BoNT-A injections superficially performed above and below the mandible (total dose, 16 onabotulinumtoxinA U/side). Photographs were taken at rest and during motion (frontal and oblique views), before and after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients have been treated in the last 2 years with the following results: frontal and lateral enhancement of lower facial contour, relaxation of high horizontal lines located just below the lateral mandibular border, and lower deep vertical smile lines present lateral to the oral commissures and melomental folds. CONCLUSION: The upper platysma muscle plays a relevant role in the functional anatomy of the lower face that can be modulated safely with neuromodulators.

Avoiding and Treating Blindness From Fillers: A Review of the World Literature.

BACKGROUND: As the popularity of soft tissue fillers increases, so do the reports of adverse events. The most serious complications are vascular in nature and include blindness. OBJECTIVE: To review the cases of blindness after filler injection, to highlight key aspects of the vascular anatomy, and to discuss prevention and management strategies. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify all the cases of vision changes from filler in the world literature. RESULTS: Ninety-eight cases of vision changes from filler were identified. The sites that were high risk for complications were the glabella (38.8%), nasal region (25.5%), nasolabial fold (13.3%), and forehead (12.2%). Autologous fat (47.9%) was the most common filler type to cause this complication, followed by hyaluronic acid (23.5%). The most common symptoms were immediate vision loss and pain. Most cases of vision loss did not recover. Central nervous system complications were seen in 23.5% of the cases. No treatments were found to be consistently successful in treating blindness. CONCLUSION: Although the risk of blindness from fillers is rare, it is critical for injecting physicians to have a firm knowledge of the vascular anatomy and to understand key prevention and management strategies.

Delayed-onset nodules secondary to a smooth cohesive 20 mg/mL hyaluronic acid filler: cause and management.

BACKGROUND: The shift from 2- to 3-dimensional soft tissue augmentation has allowed the development of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, which are long lasting and also reversible. Delayed-onset inflammatory nodules have recently been reported with the use of HA fillers. OBJECTIVE: The authors document their experience with delayed-onset nodules after 3-dimensional facial injection of Juvéderm Voluma (HA-V) over 68 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who were treated with HA-V between February 1, 2009, and September 30, 2014, to evaluate for delayed-onset nodules. RESULTS: Over 68 months, 4,702 treatments were performed using 11,460 mL of HA-V. Twenty-three patients (0.5%) experienced delayed-onset nodules. The median time from injection to reaction was 4 months, and median time to resolution was 6 weeks. Nine of the 23 (39%) had an identifiable immunologic trigger such as flu-like illness before the nodule onset. In the authors' experience, prednisone, intralesional corticosteroids, and hyaluronidase were effective treatments. CONCLUSION: Although delayed nodules are uncommon from HA-V (0.5%), it is important to be aware of this adverse effect and have a management protocol in place. It is the authors' opinion from the patients' responses and from the literature that these nodules are immune mediated in nature.

Blindness caused by cosmetic filler injection: a review of cause and therapy.

Vascular occlusion causing blindness is a rare yet greatly feared complication of the use of facial aesthetic fillers. The authors performed a review of the aesthetic literature to ascertain the reported cases of blindness and the literature reporting variations in the vascular anatomy of the human face. The authors suggest a small but potentially helpful addition to the accepted management of the acute case. Cases of blindness, mostly irreversible, from aesthetic filler injections have been reported from Asia, Europe, and North America. Autologous fat appears to be the most frequent filler causing blindness. Some cases of partial visual recovery have been reported with hyaluronic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite fillers. The sudden profusion of new medical and nonmedical aesthetic filler injectors raises a new cause for alarm about patient safety. The published reports in the medical literature are made by experienced aesthetic surgeons and thus the actual incidence may be even higher. Also, newer injectors may not be aware of the variations in the pattern of facial vascular arborization. The authors present a summary of the relevant literature to date and a suggested helpful addition to the protocols for urgent management.

Vascular compromise from soft tissue augmentation: experience with 12 cases and recommendations for optimal outcomes.

The popularity of soft tissue fillers is, in part, due to their favorable side-effect profile. However, serious complications can occur. The authors describe their extensive clinical experience with soft-tissue augmentation and the rare complication of vascular compromise, which can lead to necrosis and scarring. Over a 10-year period between January 2003 and January 2013, the authors observed a total of 12 cases of vascular compromise. Eight patients in their clinical practice showed evidence of vascular compromise out of a total of 14,355 filler injections (0.05%). In addition, four patients treated with an experimental particulate filler had vascular complications. All cases were examined for filler type, location of complication, risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. Although treatment plans differed for each patient in their series, all cases of vascular compromise resolved fully. The authors believe that an office-based protocol for both immediate and ongoing care-including a thorough individualized assessment and treatment plan for each patient-is critical to timely and effective resolution of side effects. They propose key recommendations for the prevention and management of vascular compromise to improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of permanent complications.

Safety of lidocaine 15% and prilocaine 5% topical ointment used as local anesthesia for intense pulsed light treatment.

BACKGROUND: Literature cautions against applying lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% over an area larger than 300 cm(2). The area of the face, neck, and chest is 400 cm(2) or greater. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% topical anesthetic ointment used as anesthesia for intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% ointment was applied to the face only (n=10) for 30 +/- 15 minutes or to the face, neck, and chest (n=10) for a total of 60 +/- 15 minutes before IPL. Blood lidocaine and prilocaine levels were measured. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, blood was drawn 25.6 +/- 6.6 minutes after IPL was completed. In the face only group, the mean lidocaine level was 0.122 +/- 0.125 microg/mL, and the mean prilocaine level was 0.048 +/- 0.029 microg/mL. In the face, neck, and chest group, the mean lidocaine level was 0.272 +/- 0.208 microg/mL, and the mean prilocaine level was 0.087 +/- 0.060 microg/mL. No adverse events related to systemic toxicity were observed or reported to the nurse. At the 24-hour follow-up, no subject reported symptoms of systemic toxicity after leaving the clinic. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions of this study, topical lidocaine 15%/prilocaine 5% produces low levels of systemic absorption.