Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDermal fillers have been increasingly used in minimally invasive facial esthetic procedures. This widespread use has led to a rise in reports of associated complications. The aim of this expert consensus report is to describe potential adverse events associated with dermal fillers and to provide guidance on their treatment and avoidance.MethodsA multidisciplinary group of experts in esthetic treatments convened to discuss the management of the complications associated with dermal fillers use. A search was performed for English, French, and Spanish language articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar using the search terms “complications” OR “soft filler complications” OR “injectable complications” AND “dermal fillers” AND “Therapy”. An initial document was drafted by the Coordinating Committee, and it was reviewed and modified by the experts, until a final text was agreed upon and validated.ResultsThe panel addressed consensus recommendations about the classification of filler complications according to the time of onset and about the clinical management of different complications including bruising, swelling, edema, infections, lumps and bumps, skin discoloration, and biofilm formation. Special attention was paid to vascular compromise and retinal artery occlusion.ConclusionsClinicians should be fully aware of the signs and symptoms related to complications and be prepared to confidently treat them. Establishing action protocols for emergencies, with agents readily available in the office, would reduce the severity of adverse outcomes associated with injection of hyaluronic acid fillers in the cosmetic setting. This document seeks to lay down a set of recommendations and to identify key issues that may be useful for clinicians who are starting to use dermal fillers. Additionally, this document provides a better understanding about the diagnoses and management of complications if they do occur.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.

BackgroundWith the global increase in the use of injectable fillers, more cases with serious adverse events such as skin ischemia and vision loss are being reported. This article aims to review the role of HA fillers, as a subgroup separate from fat graft and non-HA fillers, in causing vision loss and to elucidate various features and outcomes of post-HA filler vision loss.MethodsThe preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to report this review. A total of 29 articles presenting 60 unique cases of post-HA filler vision loss were identified in the literature. Based on various inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26 articles with details of 44 cases were included in this study.ResultsThe majority of cases were seen in women and in the 20–40 years age group. The maximum number of cases was reported from Korea, followed by China. Nearly half of the cases reported after HA filler-related visual complications had partial loss of sight, hence ‘partial vision loss’ and ‘complete vision loss’ were used as differentiating descriptive terms to the degree of ‘blindness.’ Nearly all the cases were unilateral, with immediate onset of visual signs and symptoms. The nose, glabella, and forehead were the most commonly implicated areas, while no cases of post-HA filler vision loss were reported from lower face anatomical areas, including the chin, jawline, and lips. Partial vision loss after HA filler has a better prognosis than complete vision loss. HA filler volumes as low as 0.2 ml can cause permanent, complete vision loss, which is suggestive of the embolic nature of HA filler blockage. Ophthalmic artery occlusion (OAO) and central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) were the two most commonly involved arterial obstruction patterns followed by branch retinal artery occlusion (BRAO). BRAO is the most favorable involved arterial pattern for a chance of recovery after HA filler-related vision loss while CRAO and OAO patterns carry a very poor prognosis.ConclusionPost-HA filler vision loss is nearly always of immediate onset. Partial vision loss after HA filler injection with the involvement of smaller branches of the retina, other than central retinal artery or ophthalmic artery, has more favorable visual outcomes.Level of Evidence IIIThis 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.

Background Complications of temporary and permanent fillers have been extensively studied. However, there is a lack of comparative data regarding poly‐L‐lactic acid (PLLA), calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), and polycaprolactone (PCL) known as collagen biostimulators. Aims This study addressed the complications of collagen biostimulators concerning their diagnosis, type of product, treatment, and monitoring. Patients/Methods An electronic questionnaire was sent to Brazilian dermatologic ultrasound experts to identify complications related to biostimulators. The type of biostimulator, location of application, number of vials injected, application plan, time between injection treatment and complication, injector profile, treatment, and prognosis were assessed. Results Fifty‐five cases were identified, of which 49.1% were caused by PLLA‐Elleva®, 23.6% by CaHA (alone or combined with hyaluronic acid), 20.0% by PLLA‐Sculptra®, and 7.3% by PCL. The most affected area was the face (72.7%), with nodules being the most common clinical form (89.1%), generally occurring late (60.0%) (>1 month). Only one case was injected at an incorrect depth (musculoaponeurotic system—SMAS). Despite several treatments, including saline (45.5%), hyaluronidase (25.5%), diluted corticosteroids (23.6%), and energy‐based devices (10.9%), only five cases showed complete resolution. Hyaluronidase was beneficial in complications related to fillers when there was an association of calcium hydroxyapatite with hyaluronic acid (p < 0.01). Conclusions Complications from collagen biostimulators were more common on the face, typically manifesting about 1 month after treatment. These issues seemed to be related more to the properties of the products rather than inadequate technique. Furthermore, hyaluronidase demonstrated efficacy only in cases where there was an association with HA.

ABSTRACT Background The selection of dermal fillers in aesthetic medicine often relies on factors such as cost, immediate outcomes, and practitioner experience. However, incorporating knowledge of fillers' rheological properties, such as viscoelasticity and cohesiveness, allows for more precise product selection tailored to patient needs and treatment goals while reducing the risk of complications. Aims This review aims to summarize essential considerations for filler selection, focusing on rheological properties, safety profiles, and clinical applications. Additionally, it seeks to highlight differences between hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers and non‐HA fillers to guide practitioners in aesthetic procedures. Patients/Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Searches across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library yielded 619 articles. After duplicate removal and rigorous screening, 50 peer‐reviewed studies were included. Data extraction focused on filler types, rheological properties (e.g., G′ and G″ values), safety, and efficacy. Results HA fillers, particularly monophasic types, exhibit smoother consistency and better cohesiveness, making them ideal for high‐mobility areas like the mouth. Biphasic fillers, with higher viscoelasticity, provide superior lifting capacity for deeper tissue support. Non‐HA fillers, such as poly‐L‐lactic acid and calcium hydroxylapatite, offer longer‐lasting results but require precise techniques due to irreversibility. Proper selection based on filler rheology, target area, and patient needs can mitigate risks such as overfilled syndrome, Tyndall effect, and delayed inflammatory responses. Conclusions Understanding the rheological and safety profiles of fillers is essential for achieving optimal aesthetic outcomes. HA fillers are recommended for novice practitioners due to their reversibility, while experienced clinicians may explore non‐HA options. Tailored filler selection based on rheological properties and clinical context ensures safer and more effective treatments.

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.

Introduction Facial fillers and injectables have transformed the landscape of cosmetic procedures, offering rejuvenation possibilities. However, the emergence of “Facial Overfilled Syndrome (FOS)” presents a concerning trend attributed to excessive filler use and suboptimal injection techniques. Understanding the interplay between facial aging and augmentation techniques is crucial in addressing and preventing FOS. Material and Methods Facial overfilled syndrome is characterized by the excessive use of fillers, resulting in a distorted and heavy appearance. It manifests in various forms, including 'flowerhorn' foreheads, 'sunset' eyes, 'chipmunk' cheeks, 'witch' chins, and 'pillow' faces. The syndrome arises from attempts to combat anatomical aging with dramatic filler treatments, causing rapid volume changes and skin tightening. Skeletal structures and soft tissue distribution across different ethnicities play a significant role in FOS development. Results Understanding the aging process across facial tissues is essential, as fillers cannot entirely reverse aging manifestations. Tailored assessment and treatment plans should precede filler injections, involving muscle assessment, observation of facial movements during injection, and ultrasound imaging of fat layers. Attention should be given to filler pressure and migration risks, particularly in areas with elevated pressure. Additionally, alternative approaches like energy‐based devices and polymer reinforcement of facial ligaments should be considered to minimize filler use. Ethnic variations in facial anatomy require careful consideration to avoid overcorrection. Conclusion FOS predominantly affects individuals of East Asian descent due to specific facial characteristics. Prevention strategies involve minimizing filler use, addressing underlying bone changes, and considering ethnic and gender differences in facial anatomy. Recent MRI and ultrasound studies challenge the notion of filler breakdown, emphasizing the importance of filler selection and injection techniques. Education, individualized treatments, and a holistic understanding of facial anatomy are key to preventing and managing FOS and ensuring natural and harmonious facial aesthetics.

ABSTRACT Background Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are widely used in aesthetic medicine, but their in vivo behavior and long‐term effects are not fully understood. Aims To review the decomposition and changes occurring in the body following HA filler injections, focusing on crosslinking agents, degradation processes, and tissue responses. Methods This review analyzed oxidative and enzymatic degradation processes of HA fillers, evaluated the impact of 1,4‐Butanediol Diglycidyl Ether (BDDE) crosslinking, and examined histological changes post‐injection. Results Uncrosslinked HA degrades rapidly due to endogenous hyaluronidase, while crosslinked HA undergoes slower degradation via free radicals and hyaluronidase. Complete cross‐linking (C‐MoD) showed better durability compared to partially cross‐linked BDDE (P‐MoD). The concept of modification efficiency (MoE) was proposed to optimize filler safety and viscoelastic properties. Histological analysis revealed collagen capsule formation and autologous tissue replacement, affecting long‐term outcomes. The degree of chemical modification (MoD) influences filler durability and safety, with concerns raised about potential delayed immune reactions from accumulated pendent BDDE. Conclusions Clinicians should consider injection site, tissue conditions, and filler properties for safe and effective HA filler use. Emphasizing thorough BDDE removal and optimal crosslinking can enhance treatment safety and efficacy. The balance between achieving desired viscoelastic properties and minimizing potential risks is crucial. Future studies should include diverse ethnic groups to validate findings and further explore long‐term tissue responses to HA fillers.

Background The use of dermal fillers in minimally invasive facial aesthetic procedures has become increasingly popular of late, yet as the indications and the number of procedures performed increase, the number of complications is also likely to increase. Paying special attention to specific patient characteristics and to the technique used can do much to avoid these complications. Indeed, a well-trained physician can also minimize the impact of such problems when they do occur. Methods A multidisciplinary group of experts in aesthetic treatments reviewed the main factors associated with the complications that arise when using dermal fillers. A search of English, French and Spanish language articles in PubMed was performed using the terms “complications” OR “soft filler complications” OR “injectable complications” AND “dermal fillers”. An initial document was drafted that reflected the complications identified and recommendations as to how they should be handled. This document was then reviewed and modified by the expert panel, until a final text was agreed upon and validated. Results The panel addressed consensus recommendations about the preparation, the procedure and the post-procedural care. The panel considered it crucial to obtain an accurate medical history to prevent potential complications. An additional clinical assessment, including standardized photography, is also crucial to evaluate the outcomes and prevent potential complications. Furthermore, the state of the operating theatre, the patient’s health status and the preparation of the skin are critical to prevent superficial soft tissue infections. Finally, selecting the appropriate technique, based on the physician’s experience, as well as the characteristics of the patient and filler, helps to ensure successful outcomes and limits the complications. Conclusions This consensus document provides key elements to help clinicians who are starting to use dermal fillers to employ standard procedures and to understand how best to prevent potential complications of the treatment. Level of Evidence V 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 .

Tissue fillers injections remain to be one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematize and present available data on the aesthetic outcomes and safety of treating the nasolabial fold area with tissue fillers. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials that report outcomes concerning treatment of nasolabial fold area with tissue fillers. We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciELO, Scopus, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, CNKI and Web of Science databases. Primary outcomes included aesthetic improvement measured using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Secondary outcomes were incidence rates of complications occurring after the procedure. At baseline, the pooled mean WSRS score was 3.23 (95% CI: 3.20–3.26). One month after the procedure, the pooled WSRS score had reached 1.79 (95% CI: 1.74–1.83). After six months it was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.99–2.05) and after 12 months it was 2.46 (95% CI: 2.4–2.52). One month after the procedure, the pooled GAIS score had reached 2.21 (95% CI: 2.14–2.28). After six months, it was 2.32 (95% CI: 2.26–2.37), and after 12 months, it was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.12–1.42). Overall, the pooled incidence of all complications was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46–0.7). Most common included lumpiness (43%), tenderness (41%), swelling (34%) and bruising (29%). Tissue fillers used for nasolabial fold area treatment allow achieving a satisfying and sustainable improvement. Most common complications include tenderness, lumpiness, swelling, and bruising.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.\"

Introduction: Enlarged facial pores are a common cosmetic concern caused by excessive sebum production, visible hair shafts, and a reduction in skin elasticity, leading to a decrease in skin quality and overall appearance. Various treatment modalities have been explored to address this issue. This study focuses on the efficacy and safety of combining Onabotulinumtoxin A (OnaBoNT-A) and hyaluronic acid filler (HA filler) to target enlarged facial pores in Asians. Materials and Methods: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OnaBoNT-A monotherapy in combination with HA filler for the treatment of enlarged facial pores. This study was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, split-face, controlled trial that enrolled 32 subjects with visibly enlarged pores on both cheeks. One side of the face received intradermal injections of OnaBoNT-A, while the other side received OnaBoNT-A in combination with intradermal hyaluronic acid filler injection. The outcomes were measured by pore volume, visual assessment, pain score, improvement score, and side effects at various time intervals up to 24 weeks. Results: This study investigated the effects of onaBoNT-A monotherapy or in combination with HA filler on facial pore size and skin roughness. The results showed that both sides exhibited a reduction in pore volume and skin roughness over time, but the side treated with onaBoNT-A monotherapy had a slightly better improvement than the combination side at the 6-month follow-up. Subjects with histories of facial oiliness were more likely to respond to onaBoNT-A monotherapy, while those without histories of facial oiliness were more likely to respond to the side treated with combined treatment. The most common adverse events were erythema, bruising, and edema, which were more frequent on the combination side. Additionally, 18 subjects (56.25%) experienced a palpable lump on the combination side, which resolved in most cases within a few months. Conclusion: BoNT-A and HA dermal filler had a role in reducing pore size. Nonetheless, individuals with enlarged pores who exhibited beneficial effects to botulinum toxin injection typically had a background of facial oiliness. Adverse incidents like dermal edema and palpable nodules were observed, underscoring the significance of meticulous patient selection and accurate injection technique.