Dataset Information

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Full-face aesthetic treatment involving several treatment modalities may improve facial aesthetic outcome. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient perceptions of monotherapy with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by full-face combination treatments of ABO, HA filler, and skin-boosting HA (RSB). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Subjects aged 35 to 50 years were randomized to monotherapy with 50 s.U ABO in the glabella or ?1 mL HA filler in the nasolabial folds (NLFs)/cheeks. At Month 6 and Month 12, all subjects received combination treatment with ?50 s.U ABO in the glabella, ?2 mL HA filler in the NLFs/cheeks (and other facial areas as applicable), and ?1 mL RSB (additional RSB treatment at Month 7). Assessments included global facial aesthetic appearance and improvement, first impression, perceived age, wrinkle severity, satisfaction questionnaires, and adverse events. RESULTS:Repeated full-face combination treatment with ABO, HA filler, and RSB was associated with considerably higher levels of aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction than monotherapy with ABO or HA filler. Improvement rate of glabellar lines was increasing with each treatment. CONCLUSION:Repeated combination treatment achieved greater change in global facial aesthetic appearance than monotherapy. Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction was high and increased with each treatment. All treatments were well tolerated.

SUBMITTER: Cartier H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7147415 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

Cartier Hugues H Hedén Per P Delmar Henry H Bergentz Per P Skoglund Cecilia C Edwartz Carolina C Norberg Maria M Kestemont Philippe P

Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] 20200401 4

<h4>Background</h4>Full-face aesthetic treatment involving several treatment modalities may improve facial aesthetic outcome.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient perceptions of monotherapy with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by full-face combination treatments of ABO, HA filler, and skin-boosting HA (RSB).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Subjects aged 35 to 50 years were randomized to monotherapy with 50 s.U ABO in the glabella or ≤1 m ...[more]

PMID: 31592825

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: The lips and the mouth play an indispensable role in vocalization, mastication and face aesthetics. Various noxious factors may alter and destruct the original structure, and appearance of the lips and the anatomical area surrounding the mouth. The application of hyaluronic acid (HA) may serve as a safe method for lip regeneration. Although a number of studies exist for HA effectiveness and safety, its beneficial effect is not well-established. Aim: The present meta-analysis and systematic review was performed to investigate the effectiveness of HA on lip augmentation. We also investigated the types and nature of adverse effects (AEs) of HA application. Methods: We reported our meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42018102899. We performed the systematic literature search in CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series and case reports were included. The untransformed proportion (random-effects, DerSimonian-Laird method) of responder rate to HA injection was calculated. For treatment related AEs descriptive statistics were used. Results: The systematic literature search yielded 32 eligible records for descriptive statistics and 10 records for quantitative synthesis. The results indicated that the overall estimate of responders (percentage of subjects with increased lip fullness by one point or higher) was 91% (ES = 0.91, 95% CI:0.85-0.96) 2 months after injection. The rate of responders was 74% (ES = 0.74, 95% CI:0.66-0.82) and 46% (ES = 0.46, 95% CI:0.28-0.65) after 6 and 12 months, respectively. We included 1,496 participants for estimating the event rates of AEs. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were tenderness (88.8%), injection site swelling (74.3%) and bruising (39.5%). Rare AEs included foreign body granulomas (0.6%), herpes labialis (0.6%) and angioedema (0.3%). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis revealed that lip augmentation with injectable HA is an efficient method for increasing lip fullness for at least up to 6 months after augmentation. Moreover, we found that most AEs of HA treatment were mild or moderate, but a small number of serious adverse effects were also found. In conclusion, further well-designed RCTs are still needed to make the presently available evidence stronger.

Project description:BackgroundPatients often seek aesthetic correction of facial deficiencies (e.g., lines and folds) that are rarely the underlying cause of dissatisfaction with their appearance. Use of a more holistic approach focused on improving the emotional messages of the face (e.g., looking less sad) may improve patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes. The MD Codes™ system was developed to increase clinician success rates by reducing variability in the technical aspects of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler treatment and focusing on addressing unfavorable emotional attributes of the face.MethodsThe MD Codes, or medical codes, represent specific anatomical subunits for injection of HA fillers. Each MD Code includes information regarding the target depth of injection, the proper delivery tool (needle or cannula) and delivery technique (e.g., aliquot, bolus, fanning), and the minimum product volume recommended to achieve visible, reproducible results (active number). During treatment planning, the appropriate MD Codes are selected using algorithms focused on lessening unfavorable facial attributes (a saggy, tired, sad, or angry look) and enhancing positive attributes (an attractive, younger, more contoured, or feminine [soft] or masculine look).ResultsThree case studies are presented to illustrate how the MD Codes and their algorithms were used to address sagginess, tiredness, and sadness in two women and one man.ConclusionsMD Codes provide a universal symbolic language for reducing variability in injection technique. The platform provides user-friendly algorithms to help clinicians increase patient satisfaction by going beyond treatment of lines and folds and to focus on reducing unfavorable facial attributes.Level of evidence ivThis 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 .

Project description:Importance:Although hyaluronidase is known to remove hyaluronic acid fillers, use of low doses has not been well studied. Objective:To assess the effectiveness and dose-related effect of small quantities of hyaluronidase to treat hyaluronic acid filler nodules. Design, Setting, and Participants:Split-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial at an urban academic center. Participants were 9 healthy women. Recruitment and follow-up occurred from February 2013 to March 2014; data analysis occurred from February to July 2016. Interventions:Each participant received aliquots (buttons) of either of 2 types of hyaluronic acid fillers into bilateral upper inner arms, respectively. At 1, 2, and 3 weeks each button was treated with a constant volume (0.1 mL) of variable-dose hyaluronidase (1.5, 3.0, or 9.0 U per 0.1 mL) or saline control. Main Outcomes and Measures:Both a blinded dermatologist and the participant independently assessed detectability. Results:Seventy-two treatment sites on 9 women (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [15.7] years) received all interventions and were analyzed. There was a significant difference in physician rater assessment between saline and hyaluronidase at 4 weeks (visual detection: mean difference = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.46-1.80; P < .001; palpability: mean difference = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.61-1.83; P < .001) and 4 months (visual detection: mean difference = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.33-1.26; P = .001; palpability: mean difference = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.38-1.25; P < .001) that was mirrored by participant self-assessment at 4 weeks (visual detection: mean difference = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.26-1.48; P = .006; palpability: mean difference = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.41-1.77; P < .001) and 4 months (visual detection: mean difference = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53; P < .001; palpability: mean difference = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.01; P < .001), and hyaluronidase was associated with greater resolution of buttons compared with normal saline. The 9.0-unit hyaluronidase injection sites were significantly less palpable than the 1.5-unit sites at both 4 weeks (mean difference = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.01-.99; P = .045) and 4 months (mean difference = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-0.81; P = .007). Dose dependence was more notable for Restylane-L. Conclusions and Relevance:Although very small doses of hyaluronidase can remove hyaluronic acid fillers from patient skin, slightly higher doses often result in more rapid resolution. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01722916.

Dataset Information

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

Publications

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure