A case report on dermal filler-related periorbital granuloma formation

Cosmetic injectables in skin of color: A review of uses, safety, and effectiveness of neuromodulators and dermal fillers

BACKGROUND

Skin of color (SOC) individuals represent a growing market for cosmetic injectables and can have different aesthetic goals and responses to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

A review of the uses, safety, and effectiveness of injectable neuromodulators and dermal fillers in SOC individuals.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was conducted from August 1960 to December 2020. Studies that were included either had a focus on SOC (>20% SOC study participants) or dedicated article content commenting on the safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC participants.

RESULTS

Of the 503 publications identified, a total of 88 articles were selected for this review. Differences in aging and cultural factors can influence aesthetic goals amongst SOC populations. Available data suggests that botulinum toxin (BTX) and dermal fillers are safe and effective in SOC populations, with the largest amount of data existing for Asian populations. There remains a paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations.

CONCLUSION

BTX and dermal fillers are generally effective and well tolerated in SOC populations, particularly Asian populations for which the greatest amount of data exists. More high quality, randomized controlled trials in Black and Latinx populations are warranted.

One-Year Safety Evaluation of New Hyaluronic Acid Fillers (YYS Series): A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

With the continuous increasing availability of new filler products, each hyaluronic acid filler brand has distinctive pharmacokinetics, which may be associated with different complications. Therefore, the long-term safety of new generations of fillers should be evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, multicenter, observational, postmarketing study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04738019) aimed to investigate the incidence of delayed-onset nodules and adverse reactions after the injection of new hyaluronic acid fillers (YYS series) into the facial skin.

METHODS

Subjects scheduled to receive an injection YYS series filler were followed up for 52 weeks. The authors aimed to determine the incidence of a self-reported delayed-onset nodule-a visible or palpable nodule or mass at the injection site that was detected beyond the 14th day following the injection-during the 1-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

Among the 1,022 subjects who received an injection of the YYS series, the incidences of delayed-onset nodules were 0% for YYS 360, YYS 540, and YYS 720. A 0.21% incidence (1 delayed hypersensitivity reaction) of a delayed-onset adverse reaction was noted for YYS 720, although none were reported for YYS 360 and YYS 540.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a notably low frequency of adverse reactions associated with the YYS series was observed.

Needleless laser injector versus needle injection for skin enhancement and rejuvenation effect of dermal filler

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A needleless laser-induced microjet injector is a novel transdermal drug delivery system that can rapidly inject a very small and precise drug dose into the skin with minimal pain and downtime. In this study, we aimed to compare the laser-induced microjet injection versus needle injection of polylactic acid/hyaluronic acid filler for skin enhancement and rejuvenation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 24-week prospective, single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, split-face study was conducted. The enrolled patients underwent one treatment session of dermal filler injection using a laser-induced microjet injector on one half of the face or a traditional needle injection on the other half of the face. Evaluation was conducted at baseline before treatment and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

A single treatment of filler injection with a laser-induced microjet injector resulted in similar improvements in skin hydration and elasticity as a single treatment of filler injection by using manual needle injection, with reduced pain, side effects, and decreased treatment time.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser-induced microjet injector enabled not only the application of a controlled dose and filler depth but also even distribution, improved clinical efficacy, reduced pain and side effects, and sufficient time for clinicians to perform treatment.

Multiple Cases of Facial Disfigurement From Filler Use and One Injector

PURPOSE

To present a case of facial disfigurement from an injectable permanent filler and describe the consequences to patients exposed to the same injector (common source outbreak).

METHODS

Case report and discussion of a common source outbreak after a group of persons developed complications years after permanent filler given by one injector.

RESULTS

A 39-year-old transgender model underwent polymethylmethacrylate (Artefill) facial filler injections to the lips, cheeks, and chin in 2018. A year later, the patient presented to the emergency room with severe facial swelling and difficulty breathing. Treatments have included 4 surgeries to remove filler and scar tissue and chronic low-dose oral steroid therapy. Upon questioning the patient, 6 additional people suffered from similar facial swelling years after injection by the same injector. The injector cannot be located.

CONCLUSIONS

Care must be taken in giving all facial fillers, particularly permanent ones. When one source patient is identified, questioning the patient's knowledge of others affected is critical to help manage an epidemic problem and to report a rogue injector. Physicians have a duty to investigate and report such cases.

Infraorbital mass long after dermal filler injection: A report of two cases

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid fillers have been increasingly used throughout the world in the management of aging skin in the periocular region and other areas.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate very late-term orbital mass formation secondary to Hyaluronic acid filler injection into the inferior eyelid.

METHODS

We report two cases that presented with a subcutaneous palpable mass localized at the right medial lower infraorbital area. Following clinical and radiological examination, surgical excision was required for the differential diagnosis of tumor.

RESULTS

After pathologic examination and the finding of a foreign-body granulomatous reaction, both patients recalled that hyaluronic acid filler had once been injected into their lower eyelids approximately 10 years prior. This is consistent with the fact that dermal-filler-related granuloma formation may occur even years later in the differential diagnosis of mass lesions.

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that patients be informed about the possible but rare mass effect in the infraorbital region. Clinicians should also attend to delayed hypersensitivity reactions, since patients may not recall details due to the length of time since injection.

A Case of Orbital Granuloma Secondary to Dermal Filler Injection

A foreign body granulomatous reaction is a rare complication of the subcutaneous injection of fillers. We describe a 57-year-old female that presented with a six-month history of a non-painful, right lower eyelid mass. She had a dermal filler in the zygomatic region several months before the onset of her symptoms. Anterior orbitotomy and pathology revealed multinuclear giant cells consistent with a hyaluronic acid-based filler. This case describes the clinical presentation, histopathologic features, and treatment of an orbital granuloma secondary to dermal filler injection. Our case was uncommon because the zygomatic filler migrated across the orbital septum. Additionally, transconjunctival orbitotomy was used instead of a hyaluronidase injection due to the inferior location of the granuloma.

Delayed Complications following Dermal Filler for Tear Trough Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Tear trough deformity is a popular target for the treatment with filler injections. The side effects are generally mild and transient. However, delayed complications may occur. We aim to perform a thorough systematic review of the published literature related to delayed complications after tear trough filler injections. A search of published literature was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in June 2021 and included PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase databases. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used included the following terms: delayed complications, nodules, granulomas, swelling, discoloration, dermal filler, hyaluronic acid (HA), polyacrylamide, calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), eyelid, periorbital, periocular, and tear trough. Twenty-eight articles consisting of 52 individual cases were included in the final analysis. 98% (51/52) of patients were female and had an average age of 48.3 years. HA was the most reported product (71.2%, 37/52), followed by PLLA (4/52, 7.7%), and CaHA (4/52, 7.7%). The most common delayed complication with any dermal filler was swelling (42.3%, 22/52) followed by lumps or nodules (25.0%, 13/52). Xanthelasma-like reaction (17.3%, 9/52), migration (7.7%, 4/52), discoloration (3%, 3/52) also occurred. The average time of onset of any complication was 16.8 months with xanthelasma-like reaction appearing soonest (mean: 10 months) and discoloration appearing latest (mean: 52 months). Most swelling cases were caused by HA. Semi-permanent fillers such as PMMA and synthetic fillers such as PLLA were more likely to be associated with lumps and nodules than other complications. It is important that clinicians who perform tear trough augmentation with dermal fillers have a thorough understanding of the risks of the procedure to diagnose and manage them promptly as well as provide patients with accurate information regarding the potential adverse effects.

Nonsurgical Tear Trough Volumization: A Systematic Review of Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical rejuvenation of the tear trough area via the use of injectable filler material has become a popular procedure in facial rejuvenation. This procedure offers immediate, albeit temporary, results with minimal recovery time.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to report on patient satisfaction and complication rates to further guide practitioners.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus libraries were queried for articles containing relevant terms. Articles with more than 5 patients who reported on satisfaction and/or complications from the procedure were included for review. In addition to these variables, we noted other aspects of injection, including filler material, technique, and needle or cannula delivery. Studies that did not otherwise fulfill inclusion criteria for statistical analysis but reported on intravascular injection-related complications were cited.

RESULTS

Initial query resulted in 1655 studies which were assessed for duplicates and inclusion/exclusion criteria. After screening, 28 articles were included for analysis. In total, 1956 patients were captured who had been injected with 1 of 4 materials: hyaluronic acid (1535), calcium hydroxyapatite (376), autologous fibroblast/keratin gel (35), and collagen-based filler (10). Short- and long-term satisfaction rates were 84.4% and 76.7%, respectively. Minor complications were common (44%). Secondarily, we found the use of cannula for filler injection of this region to be associated with a lower rate of ecchymosis (7% vs 17%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Filler injection volumization of tear trough deformity is an effective technique for facial rejuvenation associated with high patient satisfaction. Multiple filler materials offer acceptable satisfaction and complication profiles.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

The use of periocular fillers in aesthetic medicine

The periocular area is the first to display signs of ageing. Dermal fillers are an increasingly popular, minimally invasive method for facial rejuvenation. The eye is anatomically delicate and complex. Therefore, special consideration must be taken if dermal fillers are employed. This article examines the literature to assess the efficacy and safety of dermal fillers around the eye as well as the management of complications secondary to dermal filler use, such as oedema, granuloma formation, filler migration, xanthelasma, skin necrosis and visual loss. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is the most popular and commonly employed dermal filler for periocular use. It is effective, with good observer improvement and patient satisfaction (p<0.0001). Ninety percent of adverse events are mild in nature and self-resolve within 1 month. Malar oedema is a delayed complication unique to the periocular area, occurring in 11% of patients. This can be managed with use of hyaluronidase if a HA filler has been employed. Other complications, such as granuloma formation, filler migration and xanthelasma, have also been reported with variable management outcomes. Vascular adverse events include skin necrosis and visual loss. No Level 1 evidence exists for the management of visual loss. Two cases of visual restoration have been identified in the literature; however, this is rare.

Case Report: The role of intradermal micro-droplet hyaluronic acid injection in the correction of filler nodules complication

Filler injection has been widely used as a non-surgical intervention for skin rejuvenation and augmentation for the past decade. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered the most common treated material with high safety profile. Various mechanisms, including promoting collagen synthesis are postulated the efficacy of this powerful skin rejuvenation. The greater number of its used, the more complications were seen. Among the non-vascular complications from filler injection, the most frequent one is nodule formation. It could occur as early or late onset even with HA injection. One of the causes of these nodule formation is from poor injection technique leading to visible skin beads and lumps. The current treatments of these filler side effects mainly aim to remove or reduce excessive or displaced filler product. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no report of using the intradermal injection of the micro-droplet HA to correct filler nodule and simultaneously revitalize the skin quality. This novel treatment technique could be a safe alternative for nodule formation correction.