Delayed Superficial Migration of Retained Hyaluronic Acid Years Following Periocular Injection

The Posthyaluronidase Syndrome: Dosing Strategies for Hyaluronidase in the Dissolving of Facial Filler and Independent Predictors of Poor Outcomes

Background

Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers are used extensively in periocular aesthetic medicine, and the incidence of filler-related complications is increasing. This study aimed to investigate the optimal dosing strategy for hyaluronidase and to identify predictors of poor outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 157 orbits of 90 patients treated with hyaluronidase over a 4-year period. Demographic data, indication, and details of hyaluronidase treatment and outcomes were recorded.

Results

The primary indication for dissolving filler was swelling in 52%, lumpiness in 20%, and before surgical blepharoplasty in 17%. The most frequently used hyaluronidase concentration was 150 U per mL in 66%, followed by 75 U per mL in 31%, 37.5 U per mL in 3%, and 100 U per mL in 1%. Outcomes were characterized as follows: 59% with a satisfactory result; 24% as insufficient treatment requiring further hyaluronidase; and 18% complaining of facial changes such as hollowing, indicating a post hyaluronidase syndrome. There was no statistical difference in outcomes between the 75 and 150 U per mL dosage groups (P = 0.625). A significant correlation was identified between posthyaluronidase syndrome and duration of filler in situ (P = 0.00019) and volume of filler (P = 0.000017).

Conclusions

The posthyaluronidase syndrome may be related to previous filler volume and duration, rather than the concentration or dose of hyaluronidase used. All patients should be informed about the risks of adverse effects after hyaluronidase treatment; patients with longer histories of filler use and higher total volumes should be advised of the increased risk.

A Rare Case of Migration of Hyaluronic Acid Gluteal Injection to the Medial Thigh Presenting as a Soft Lump

Introduction Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a widely accepted agent most commonly used as a dermal filler in facial aesthetic/cosmetic medicine. More recently, HA has been utilized for gluteal augmentation. The common side effects of HA injection are often minor and self-limiting. HA migration is a very rare complication.

Case Report We describe a rare case of HA buttock injection migration in a transgender patient, appearing as a superficial lump on right thigh representing a diagnostic dilemma. We highlight the need of a clinical suspicion and discuss the appropriate investigations for guided management of such patients.

Conclusion It is essential for reporting radiologist to be aware of the commonly used injectable fillers, their complications, and imaging findings to avoid misdiagnosis and guide optimal patient management.

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.

Comparing Water Absorption of Food and Drug Administration-Approved Hyaluronic Acid Fillers

BACKGROUND

To compare the water absorption of 12 FDA-approved hyaluronic acid (HA) facial fillers in vitro in conditions relevant to in vivo injection.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to provide long-term insight into an improved, tailored facial rejuvenation approach and to understand sequelae that could affect preoperative surgical planning.

METHODS

In 2 experiments, 12 FDA-approved HA fillers were loaded into test tubes with nonpreserved normal saline and then placed in a 94.5°F-96°F environment for 1 month to allow water absorption by passive diffusion. The test tubes were centrifuged so that the hydrated filler could pass to the bottom of the tube. The tubes were centrifuged for 12 minutes at 1,200 revolutions per minute in the first experiment and for 7 minutes in the second experiment. A blue dye was then instilled to demarcate the filler/saline interface.

RESULTS

There was variation in the water absorption of different HAs. Low absorption occurred in non-animal-stabilized hyaluronic acid.

CONCLUSION

The pattern of water absorption was similar in the 2 experiments. The results inform us about in vivo conditions and provide guidance for filler selection.

Imaging of the post-operative orbit and associated complications

Dedicated post-operative radiological evaluation following ophthalmologic procedures is relatively uncommon. However, given the ever-growing ophthalmologic procedural advancements and the increasing utilization of neuroimaging for myriad indications, the orbits are often imaged incidentally in a delayed post-procedural state. Regardless of the clinical scenario, it is important for neuroradiologists and other specialists commonly exposed to orbital imaging to be aware of both expected and abnormal post-operative imaging findings because misinterpreted normal features or unrecognized complications can result in vision-threatening delays in treatment or mismanagement. In this review article, we discuss many common ophthalmologic procedures, their indications, and most likely complications. We also provide illustrative operative photographs and radiological imaging examples. By understanding the surgical intent, recognizing the devices that are commonly used, and developing familiarity with the appearance of post-operative complications, pitfalls in interpretation can be avoided and patient outcomes ultimately improved.

Delayed migration of soft tissue fillers in the periocular area masquerading as eyelid and orbital pathology

Soft tissue fillers used for facial rejuvenation can cause complications. We present two cases of late migration of injected fillers mimicking other pathology in the periocular area. Case 1 is a 52-year-old woman referred with chronic bilateral upper lid swelling, mimicking blepharochalasis syndrome, 5¹/₂ years after undergoing injection of hyaluronic acid filler in both brows. Extensive blood investigations were normal. Bilateral, sequential upper lid biopsy revealed migrated hyaluronic acid filler, which was successfully treated with hyaluronidase. Case 2 is a 62-year-old woman who presented with a right lower lid mass 8 years after undergoing injection of polyalkylimide gel into both cheeks. CT scanning confirmed an intermediate density soft tissue mass overlying the inferior orbital rim. Histology from surgical excision reported chronic granulomatous inflammation due to migrated polyalkylimide gel. An awareness of late migration of fillers causing eyelid swelling and masses in the periocular area will prevent unnecessary investigations and facilitate prompt management.

Safety of Copolyamide Filler Injection for Breast Augmentation

Although injections with copolyamide fillers (Aquafilling/Los Deline and Aqualift/Activegel) are currently used widely for breast augmentation, many complications have been reported. A recent position statement by a Korean aesthetic/reconstructive breast surgery society indicated these fillers are the same as polyacrylamide gel (PAAG), which is widely prohibited due to complications. To test this statement, this retrospective cohort study examined the clinical complications after breast augmentation with copolyamide fillers. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) analysis of copolymer and PAAG fillers was also conducted.

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.

Hypersensitivity Caused by Cosmetic Injection: Systematic Review and Case Report

OBJECTIVE

Botulinum toxin injection, micro-needling injection, and filler injection are the most widely used non-surgical facial cosmetic treatments. Hypersensitivity reactions associated with injections have not received sufficient attention due to their low incidence rates. The authors tried to summarize the characteristics of the hypersensitivity caused by cosmetic injections and helped to improve the diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed database to September 2019 was performed. Articles were screened using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected included patient characteristics, injection information (injected material, trade name, location of injection, symptoms of allergy, time of onset), diagnostic examination, treatment, and prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 14 articles (57 patients) were included. There were 3 patients receiving botulinum toxin injection, 3 patients receiving micro-needling injection, and 46 patients receiving hyaluronic acid injection. Five patients were injected with collagen, polyacrylamide, paraffin, alkyl-imide or hyaluronidase, separately. The symptoms were redness, swelling, itching or induration at the injection site. The diagnosis and treatment methods vary greatly depending on the injection fillers. Removing the injected filler is the primary treatment.

CONCLUSION

Although hypersensitivity reaction is a relatively uncommon adverse event, more practice guidelines and research on diagnosis and treatment are demanded to help improve the outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Prospective in vivo evaluation of three different hyaluronic acid gels to varying doses of hyaluronidase with long-term follow-up

PURPOSE

Several injectable hyaluronic acid dermal fillers exist in the market, each with different rheologic and cross-linking properties. Their reversibility is useful for managing complications. We sought to determine the response of three different hyaluronic acid gels to varying doses of hyaluronidase.

METHODS

Each of 18 arms of nine subjects were prospectively randomized to receive intradermal injections of hyaluronic acid gel (Restylane-L, Juvéderm Ultra, Juvéderm Voluma). Seven sites on each arm were randomized to receive 0.2 mL of hyaluronic acid gel in anticipation of dissolution 1 week later with varying doses of hyaluronidase (Hylenex), 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 units or to be a control site. The outcome measures of diameter, elevation, and firmness were measured pre-injection and at varying time points to beyond 4 years. Subjects, graders, and injectors were masked.

RESULTS

The most dramatic changes for all fillers occurred starting at the 30-min time point through 3 h time point, with continued gradual degradation through week 2. A mild dose response was found for Juvéderm and Restylane; however, a clear dose response was seen from 2.5 to 10 units for Voluma, with 2.5 units showing features more like those of saline only or no hyaluronidase control. One Restylane arm had controls lasting four years.

CONCLUSIONS

All fillers had a dose response, with Voluma exhibiting it most clearly. Voluma required higher doses of hyaluronidase for dissolution, i.e., more than 20 units per 0.2 mL of filler. Restylane appeared to respond most readily to hyaluronidase, at the dose of even 2.5 units, but it also was fastest to dissolve on its own.

Filler Migration and Florid Granulomatous Reaction to Hyaluronic Acid Mimicking a Buccal Tumor

Hyaluronic acid is among the most commonly used cosmetic fillers. Although considered biocompatible and safe, it may rarely cause a wide range of complications. The authors report a case of migration of hyaluronic acid concomitant with granulomatous inflammatory response that mimicked a buccal tumor. A 52-year-old female presented with a solid painless mass of the right buccal area. The patient denied any history of trauma and cosmetic procedures of the affected area. Skin and mucosal membrane were intact and the lesion was firm and well fixed in the deep plane. Due to worrisome clinical presentation and the patient's history of breast cancer, the lesion was excised radically. Histopathological examination revealed multiple granulomas surrounding amorphous lakes of hyaluronic acid. During repeated, thorough anamnesis the patient admitted having underwent lip augmentation and nasolabial fold correction with HA two years before, after which the filler must have migrated posteriorly. Physicians need to be aware of various complications associated with cosmetic fillers as they may mimic severe clinical conditions.

Chronic eyelid edema and xerophthalmia secondary to periorbital hyaluronic acid filler injection

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a popular, nonsurgical, temporary technique that is commonly used in the periocular region to restore volume in areas that have undergone volume loss, as well as adjusting the height and contour of the eyebrow.

AIMS

Due to the location of glands, nerves, and vasculature, the facial anatomy should be well understood to avoid injections into areas that may result in complications.

PATIENT/METHODS

A 54-year-old woman presented for a cosmetic consultation to address "puffy eyelids". She states she had HA filler injected along the orbital ridge inferior to the eyebrow and medially at the glabellar crease two years prior. Two months after her injection, she began to notice upper eyelid edema, xerophthalmia, and dryness of her nasal mucous membranes. Extensive evaluation and imaging were done by physicians of different specialties with a negative workup.

RESULTS

A total of 60 units of hyaluronidase were injected into the areas of previous filler placement over a three-week period. This resulted in complete resolution of the patient's presenting symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Familiarity with potential adverse events is arguably the most important aspect of treating patients with HA filler. The anatomy of the orbit and lacrimal system are important to keep in mind when evaluating symptoms related to possible long-term complications of retained filler injections. Reporting this case should raise awareness about this potential adverse event and further explain the delicate anatomy of the periorbital area.