Explore the vast range of titles available.

Phenol/croton oil is a unique chemical formulation promoting deep skin resurfacing and cellular renovation. Even though it has been used for decades in plastic surgery, the clinicopathological features, as well as the risks related to phenol/croton oil clinical application have not been thoroughly studied. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of the phenol/croton oil peel, the pathological characteristics from 1 patient at least and the emerging potential risks. A total of 64 patients were treated with phenol/croton oil peel between 2014 and 2023; in total, 21 of them underwent resurfacing at their oral area (upper/lower lips), 15 underwent resurfacing at their lower eyelid wrinkles, 22 patients underwent full face resurfacing, 2 patients were treated for their acne scars and additionally 4 patients were treated for multiple body seborrheic keratosis. The wrinkles, as well as the acne scars were markedly improved in all patients, the seborrheic keratosis was eliminated, while adverse events and undesired clinical manifestations related to peel intervention were mild and reversible for all patients. The application of phenol/croton oil constitutes an immensely powerful tool for deep chemical peeling and facial skin rejuvenation; nevertheless, it should be used cautiously due to its potential complications.

Background Silicone lymphadenopathy after implantation of silicone breast implants is a foreign body reaction due to the release or migration of silicone into the tissues surrounding the breast implant. Methods For the study, 14 cases of silicone lymphadenopathy were identified from the authors’ files. Four patients had been implanted before 2000 and had various types of implants. The remaining 10 patients all were implanted between 2006 and 2009, and all had Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) implants. In addition to an analysis of the authors’ own cases, a thorough bibliographic search was initiated to identify all reports of lymphadenopathy related to silicone breast implants. Results The implant age of the four patients implanted before 2000 was 12–34 years (mean, 17.25 years). The implant age of the 10 patients implanted after 2000 was 2–6 years (mean 3.45 years). The literature search identified 29 papers with case reports of silicone lymphadenopathy published between 1978 and 2012, with a total of 175 cases. Usable data were extracted from 164 of the 175 cases. Of these patients, 159 were implanted before (and including) the year 2000 and had a mean age of 11 years at presentation or explantation, and 5 of these patients were implanted after the year 2000 and had a mean age of 4.6 years at presentation or explantation . After inclusion of the authors’ own cases, the mean age of the implants at presentation or explantation was 10.56 years in a total of 178 cases. Of these patients, 163 were implanted before (and including) the year 2000 and had a mean age of 11.16 years at presentation or explantation, and 15 of these patients were implanted after the year 2000 and had a mean age of 4.06 years at presentation or explantation. Conclusions Current breast implant technology has minimized the release of silicone gel due to rupture or bleeding of silicone and its migration into the surrounding tissues, thus reducing the rate of silicone lymphadenopathy in the last 10 years. The PIP implant scandal highlights the fact that disregard for the implant manufacturing technologies and standards in favor of higher profits increased rupture rates and gel diffusion, leading to increased local complication rates. Silicone lymphadenopathy is a foreign body reaction that does not warrant treatment unless it is symptomatic or interferes with breast cancer detection. 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 .

In response to the letter from Drs. Mataro and La Padula addressing our systematic review entitled “Adverse Events Associated with Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injection for Non-surgical Facial Aesthetics: A Systematic Review of High Level of Evidence Studies“, we emphasize the deliberate scope of our research. Our review, grounded in rigorous Cochrane standards, specifically aimed to elucidate the adverse events reported in high-quality randomized control studies. While we recognize the importance of understanding HA's rheological properties for non-surgical facial aesthetics, our primary focus was on clinical outcomes and adverse events. Concerns insinuated about our methodologies based on the exclusion of rheological parameters are addressed, clarifying that such a decision was a deliberate scope limitation and not an oversight. We reaffirm the significance of our review and its contribution to the facial aesthetics field, promoting well-informed clinical decisions.Level of Evidence VThis 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.

BackgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers are widely used in aesthetic medicine. While generally safe, potential complications can arise.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and classify potential complications linked to the use of HA dermal fillers, as informed by high-quality, low-risk-of-bias studies.MethodsThis review follows the Cochrane review standards for clinical systematic reviews. This systematic review analyzed 48 high level of evidence studies on the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers in non-surgical facial aesthetics and the adverse events that occurred.The inclusion criteria were randomized control studies on HA dermal fillers and their complications. Excluded were case reports, case series, observational studies, and other non-randomized research due to their inability to provide generalized conclusions and their inherent publication bias.ResultsAdverse events were classified into three categories: expected reactions, product or technique-related adverse events, and severe adverse events. Most adverse events were short-lived injection site reactions, which resolved spontaneously. Specific HA fillers and injection techniques influenced the occurrence of adverse events, which generally resolved within weeks without treatment. Severe adverse events were rare, persisting for months and requiring active medical intervention.DiscussionThis classification system can enhance understanding, prevention, and treatment of HA filler complications, and support patient education. The common complications were injection site reactions, with persistent symptoms treated with topical steroids, NSAIDs, or hyaluronidase. Severe complications included severe edema, angioedema and others, often necessitating specific treatments.ConclusionHA dermal fillers are generally safe and effective, with most adverse events being transient and mild to moderate in severity. Severe adverse events, although rare, do occur and are generally non-treatment related. Informed consent, patient education, and professional training are crucial for safe and successful outcomes.Level of Evidence II 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.