Dermal fillers

The new bioengineered human collagen products and the various hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are all safe and effective agents for soft tissue augmentation. There is no one best filler for all purposes and optimal results are achieved by using these products in various combinations. In my opinion, HA-containing products provide volume while collagen products are better suited to provide structural support. Less downtime is associated with the collagen products, due to the platelet-aggregating effects of collagen and the eosinophil-stabilizing effects of lidocaine. Using collagen in combination with HA, during the same office visit, may help reduce some of the bruising and swelling seen with HA alone.     

Comparative split‐face study of durational changes in hyaluronic acid fillers for mid‐face volume augmentation

Subsequent changes after injection should be considered when determining the precise volume of injected dermal filler. Several studies have used scoring systems to evaluate facial volumes; however, these scoring systems are not particularly objective. This present study aimed to evaluate the volumetric changes over time on three‐dimensional (3D) images and the maintenance potential of various hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers used for mid‐face volume augmentation. This split‐face clinical study included nine Korean subjects who each received a mid‐facial injection of the test filler (B) on one side and a random control filler (J, R, or Y) on the contralateral side. Global, photographic, and 3D scanning assessments were conducted at baseline and after 30 min, 3 days, and 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks. In all nine cases, the 3D images revealed the largest differences in height where the test filler (B) was injected. The results of subjective scoring systems correlated with the results of 3D imaging. The volumes of monophasic fillers (B and J) were maintained for longer periods of time than those of biphasic fillers (R and Y). The B filler yielded excellent volumizing and spreading effects and good injectability. This filler would be suitable for injection into high‐pressure areas, such as the lateral cheek, chin, and nasolabial fold. Moreover, the 3D imaging analysis provided objective and digitized data. The present authors hope that their data will allow physicians to better understand the durational changes in HA fillers and, thus, provide accurate predictions to their patients.     

Factors influencing pre‐injection aspiration for hyaluronic acid fillers: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis

Pre‐injection aspiration of hyaluronic acid filler is a well‐recognized yet controversial safety technique. Many consider aspiration to be an important safety measure to prevent inadvertent intravascular filler injection. To assess factors influencing pre‐injection aspiration by understanding the relationship between aspiration time and a range of product, needle, and procedural characteristics. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of data, adopting the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses guidelines. Our literature search identified four articles presenting data on variables associated with aspiration time for different HA filler brands. Statistical models pooling data from the four articles suggest a robust association between aspiration time and a filler's elastic modulus (G′), drop weight (cohesivity), and cross‐sectional area of the needle lumen. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a robust association between aspiration time and HA concentration, viscous modulus (G″), needle length, and pullback volume. A deeper understanding of the relationship between product, needle, and procedural characteristics, and aspiration time can provide a sound base for discussing the role of pre‐injection negative aspiration as a safety measure. The understanding of the effect of various factors on preinjection aspiration would further benefit from studies under clinical conditions.     

Novel management of granuloma formation secondary to dermal filler: A multi-modality approach

Background

Dermal fillers for soft tissue augmentation have become increasingly popular among patients of all ages and ethnicities. With more widespread use, there has been an increased incidence of adverse reactions, one of which is the granulomatous foreign body reaction (GFBR).

Materials & Methods

We present a three patient case series in which GFBR secondary to dermal filler was successfully treated with a multi-leveled approach. The first modality involves intralesional injection of a mixture containing 1 cc of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 0.5 cc of dexamethasone sodium phosphate, and 0.1 cc of triamcinolone 10. The lesion is injected intradermally in small aliquots, similar to scar treatment. The patient then takes colchicine 1.2 mg loading dose on day 1, then 0.6 mg twice per day for 4 days concurrently with naproxen 500 mg orally once daily for 5–7 days. This process may be repeated in 6 weeks if the lesions have not resolved and PDL laser may be employed for residual post-inflammatory erythema.

Results

All three patients presented in this case series had significant aesthetic improvement in their dermal filler-derived foreign body granulomatous reactions.

Conclusion

GFBR provides both a medical and aesthetic issue for these patients including mental distress, pain, and dysfunction, therefore having an effective treatment for GFBR will affect medical management of these patients, improving patient outcomes and satisfaction. Our proposed regimen for GFBR has been shown to be highly efficacious and safe for these patients, providing a significant improvement in both function and cosmesis of the area.     

The histological aspects of fillers complications

The histological aspects of resorbable heterologous fillers (bovine collagen, acid hyaluronique), autologous fillers (lipofilling, dermis-fat graft), biodegradable fillers (New-Fill), and permanent fillers (silicone, Artecoll, Evolution, Aquamid, DermaLive, DermaDeep, Bioplastique, Paraffin) are described. This article relates the morphological aspect of these materials, the normal tissue reaction after injection, and its chronological evolution as the morphological aspects from the different side effects, more frequently observed for the permanent fillers. They mainly consist of granulomatous reactions which may appear long after injection.     

Long-term efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid dermal filler based on Tri-Hyal technology on restoration of midface volume

Introduction

Art Filler Volume (AFV) is a hyaluronic acid (HA)-based filler formulated with “Tri-Hyal” technology, a unique combination of three sizes of HA chains. This study assessed AFV efficacy and safety over 18 months when used to restore midface volume.

Methods

During this open-label study, a maximum of 1.8 mL AFV was injected into each cheek area on Day 0 (D0). Subjects were evaluated at D21, when, if necessary, a retouch could be performed (maximum 1.2 mL per cheek). Subjects were evaluated at seven follow-up visits through to D540. The primary assessment was based on the evolution of the Medicis Midface Volume Scale (MMVS) grade on D21. Secondary outcomes were local and general adverse events, investigator- and subject-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and changes in self-esteem.

Results

Of the 79 healthy Caucasians enrolled (mean age 54.8 years), 25 required a second injection. In the intention-to-treat population, mean overall MMVS scores improved significantly from D0 (3.2 ± 0.4) to D21 (1.8 ± 0.6) and D42 (1.7 ± 0.6) (all p < 0.0001). MMVS scores for each cheek also improved significantly, irrespective of retouch on D21: 22% of injections showed a persistent benefit at D540 without retouch. The most common adverse events were pain on palpation (19%), erythema (15%) and edema (13%); most were mild or moderate and resolved within 2 weeks.

Conclusion

AFV produces a sustained objective and subjective midface volume restoration in female and male subjects, often without retouching, and was well tolerated.     

Increased risk of late‐onset,immune‐mediated,adverse reactions related to dermal fillers in patients bearing HLA‐B*08 and DRB1*03 haplotypes

Even though manufacturers claim that the dermal fillers are nontoxic and nonimmunogenic, adverse events may occur. Clinically and histologically, most of the late onset adverse events present as an inflammatory response. To assess whether HLA polymorphisms are associated with late‐onset inflammatory adverse events related to dermal fillers. A total of 211 patients were included, of whom 129 experienced late‐onset inflammatory adverse events to different fillers (Inflammation group) and 82 who did not (Reference group). Patients completed a standardized questionnaire and provided a blood sample or oral swap for HLA testing. The study population consisted of 188 (89%) women and 23 (11%) men. The two study groups were similar in the distributions of filler type, location of injecting, allergy, autoimmune disease, gender, age, ethnicity, and smoking status. Of the 211 patients in the sample, 25 had the combination of HLA subtype‐B*08 and HLA subtype‐DRB1*03. This was 16.3% of the inflammatory group and 4.9% of the reference group. This combination of HLA subtypes was associated with an almost 4‐fold increase in the odds of developing immune mediated adverse events (odds ratio = 3.79, 95% CI 1.25‐11.48). Genetic polymorphisms such as HLA combinations may identify patients at risk of developing late onset immune mediated adverse events to dermal fillers.     

Chemical and mechanical characterization of hyaluronic acid hydrogel cross‐linked with polyethylen glycol and its use in dermatology

Hydrogels based on hyaluronic acid are used to restore volume, hydration, and skin tone, as well as to correct scars, asymmetries or defects of the soft tissue. Hyaluronic acid is often chemically crosslinked with different crosslinking agents in order to improve its mechanical and biological properties. Here we focused on defining the chemical and mechanical characterization of a new hydrogel with specific characteristics: hyaluronic acid polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐crosslinked with a high concentration of hyaluronic acid (28 mg/mL), manufactured by MatexLab Spa, via Carlo Urbani 2, ang Via Enrico Fermi, Brindisi, Italy. We made a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the content of sodium hyaluronate in the hydrogel after polymerization and sterilization processes and also evaluated histologically the bio integration of these hydrogels in the cutaneous soft tissues. The results suggest that hyaluronic acid hydrogel PEG‐crosslinked have great bio integration, great chemical and mechanical properties, compared with other products available on the market, that are cross‐linked with different cross‐linking agents. The nontoxicity and nonimmunogenicity of PEG guarantee the lack of allergic and immunological reactions. The PEG‐crosslinking technology guarantees a high duration time of the implanted hydrogel because of more resistant physiological degradation.