Public Perception of Facial Fillers.

There has been widespread coverage of cosmetic procedures, particularly facial fillers, as minimally invasive options for facial rejuvenation. The authors' objective was to characterize news media's coverage of facial fillers and its role in shaping public perception of these products over the past decade. Public view plays a significant role in policymaking, assisting patient communication, and addressing preconceived notions. Google News was searched for online news coverage related to "facial fillers" from 2008 to 2017. News articles from various sources were reviewed and analyzed with multiple objectives including complications listed, advantages, disadvantages, physician specialties, overall theme of the articles as positive, negative, or neutral and other parametrics. A chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Of 426 articles meeting inclusion criteria, international news (20.4%), tabloids (18.8%), online health sites (18.3%), and national news (16.9%) were represented. Of articles containing adequate information, coverage was 44.7% positive, 29.9% neutral, and 26.1% negative with no significant change from 2008 to 2017. In addition, 46.0% of papers discussed complications including vascular injury and blindness associated with fillers, with significant increase by 2017 (p < 0.05). Facial fillers media coverage was overall positive, with broad coverage at both national and international levels. Complications were discussed often, and although vascular injury and vision damage are rare complications of fillers, they were frequently cited, potentially leading the public to believe they occur frequently. There were also significant concerns in the news media about greater regulation of products used as facial fillers, and practitioners administrating them. Altogether, these findings provide a comprehensive overview of patient perception and expectations of an increasingly popular and expanding cosmetic procedure.

Rhinogenic headache in pediatric and adolescent patients: an evidence-based review.

BACKGROUND: Although some causes of rhinogenic headache, such as acute sinusitis, have clear diagnostic criteria, others, such as "sinus headache" and mucosal contact points, are more nebulous. Misdiagnosis of these entities and primary headaches may result in unnecessary medical or surgical treatment. The purpose of this systematic review is to delineate current understanding of diagnosis and treatment of rhinogenic headaches, including sinus and mucosal contact point headaches, in children. METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane databases were searched for studies on sinus headache and mucosal contact point headaches in children. Studies were assessed for level of evidence, and risk of bias was assessed by Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scoring. Diagnostic criteria, management strategies, and other clinical data were analyzed. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Level of evidence was predominantly 4. Forty percent of pediatric patients with migraine had been previously misdiagnosed with sinus headache. Of 327 pediatric patients in two studies, between 55% and 73% had at least 1 cranial autonomic symptom associated with their migraine. For children with mucosal contact point headaches, surgical management in select patients improved headache intensity or severity in 17 (89%) cases. CONCLUSION: The majority of pediatric patients with sinus headache harbor a primary headache disorder, with migraine being most common. Physicians should suspect primary headache disorders in pediatric patients with chronic headaches and a normal exam. Although some case series are supportive of surgical management for mucosal contact point headaches in children, the level of evidence supporting these recommendations is insufficient. High-quality clinical trials are necessary for continuing to improve outcomes in patients with these clinical entities.