Extremely delayed granulomatous reaction to soft-tissue injectables (polymethyl methacrylate)

PMMA Safety for Facial Filling: Review of Rates of Granuloma Occurrence and Treatment Methods

PMMA is composed of microspheres suspended in bovine collagen. Once injected in a dermal area, the carrier is absorbed, giving place to collagen that gives volume and maintains the spheres in the place. This process may give origin to exacerbate foreign body reaction and granuloma. The frequency of such complication is not clear. The primary objective was to review and compare the frequencies of granuloma between the published studies. The secondary aim was to compare the therapies and efficacies. The series of cases in which PMMA was used as facial filler were reviewed, and the rate of granulomas was compared; the case report studies describing those complications were also reviewed, and the therapies and outcomes were quantified. The data showed general frequency of PMMA-related complications of 4.9% and granulomas 1.9%; the incidence of granuloma was 1/2075 patients-year, and the time to development ranged from 6 to 180 months. The most used therapies were steroid, surgery or both, with satisfactory results. In conclusion, considering the actual risks and benefits of PMMA, we may affirm that it is a safe filler; doctors and patients must be conscious of potential risks when deciding for its use. 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.

Adverse effects of fillers

Filler injections belong to the most frequently performed noninvasive beautifying procedures. When done correctly they are generally well tolerated. However, a number of factors, such as poor filler quality, and particularly host as well as user dependent filler reactions may lead to unwanted effects. These may be early, late, or delayed events with characteristics for each of them. Temporary fillers almost invariably cause temporary side effects whereas those of permanent fillers may last forever. Some fillers are notorious for their poor safety profile; for example, silicone is banned in the European Union and the United States but nevertheless used by many practitioners and beauticians. Many fillers can be identified in histopathologic sections allowing specific measures to be instituted.

Foreign body granuloma treatment with 22-MHz ultrasound-guided corticoid infiltration

Intralesional corticoid infiltration guided by 22-MHz ultrasound is a new, noninvasive, and safe dermatological method for the treatment of foreign body granuloma. The great advantage of the procedure is that the medication is delivered straight to the desired target, preventing adverse treatment effects in noninjured areas.

Managing Complications of Fillers: Rare and Not-So-Rare

Fillers belong to the most frequently used beautifying products. They are generally well tolerated, but any one of them may occasionally produce adverse side effects. Adverse effects usually last as long as the filler is in the skin, which means that short-lived fillers have short-term side effects and permanent fillers may induce life-long adverse effects. The main goal is to prevent them, however, this is not always possible. Utmost care has to be given to the prevention of infections and the injection technique has to be perfect. Treatment of adverse effects is often with hyaluronidase or steroid injections and in some cases together with 5-fluorouracil plus allopurinol orally. Histological examination of biopsy specimens often helps to identify the responsible filler allowing a specific treatment to be adapted.

Granulomatous foreign-body reactions to permanent fillers: detection of CD123+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells

BACKGROUND

Soft-tissue augmentation with permanent fillers can lead to severe granulomatous foreign-body reactions (GFBRs), but the immune pathomechanism of this complication is still unknown. We performed conventional histologic examination and immunostaining for plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) in skin sections from patients with GFBR to 4 permanent filler agents, which have been widely used in recent decades.

METHODS

Twenty-one skin biopsies were studied from 19 patients with GFBR to polyalkylimide 4% gel (PAIG, n = 10), polyacrylamide 2.5% gel (PAAG, n = 2), hydroxyethyl methacrylate/ethyl methacrylate in hyaluronic acid (HEMA/EMA, n = 4), or liquid injectable silicone (n = 5). GFBRs were analyzed in hematoxylin and eosin stained sections and pDCs detected using CD123 antibodies. Anti-CD11c immunostaining was performed for comparison.

RESULTS

Grading of the inflammatory infiltrates observed histologically did not correlate with the clinical features of inflammation. Immunostaining for CD123 did not detect pDCs in 8 of 10 polyalkylimide gel, 1 of 2 polyacrylamide gel, and the 5 liquid injectable silicone biopsies. In contrast, all 4 HEMA/EMA biopsies contained collections of pDCs in lymphocytic infiltrates close to filler particles and adjacent sarcoidal granulomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that pDCs contribute to the sarcoidal granulomas associated with injected HEMA/EMA. Recruited pDCs may exert their pro-inflammatory effects by the release of interferon-α at the site of these filler deposits.