Literature DB >> 25372511

Multicenter prospective cohort study of the incidence of adverse events associated with cosmetic dermatologic procedures: lasers, energy devices, and injectable neurotoxins and fillers.

Murad Alam1, Rohit Kakar2, Michael Nodzenski3, Omer Ibrahim4, Wareeporn Disphanurat5, Diana Bolotin6, Judy H Borovicka7, Natalie Pace3, Tina S Alster8, Kenneth A Arndt9, Kenneth R Beer10, Joshua M Berlin11, Leonard J Bernstein12, Lori A Brightman12, Kimberly Butterwick13, Sue Ellen Cox14, Vera Chotzen15, Sabrina G Fabi16, Richard E Fitzpatrick16, Roy G Geronemus12, Mitchel P Goldman16, William F Groff13, Michael S Kaminer17, Suzanne Kilmer15, Thomas E Rohrer18, Elizabeth L Tanzi19, Susan K Silva15, Simon S Yoo3, Susan H Weinkle20, John Strasswimmer21, Emily Poon3, Jeffrey S Dover22.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Common noninvasive to minimally invasive cosmetic dermatologic procedures are widely believed to be safe given the low incidence of reported adverse events, but reliable incidence data regarding adverse event rates are unavailable to date.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of adverse events associated with noninvasive to minimally invasive cosmetic dermatologic procedures, including those involving laser and energy devices, as well as injectable neurotoxins and fillers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter prospective cohort study (March 28, 2011, to December 30, 2011) of procedures performed using laser and energy devices, as well as injectable neurotoxins and soft-tissue augmentation materials, among 8 geographically dispersed US private and institutional dermatology outpatient clinical practices focused on cosmetic dermatology, with a total of 23 dermatologists. Participants represented a consecutive sample of 20 399 cosmetic procedures. Data acquisition was for 3 months (13 weeks) per center, with staggered start dates to account for seasonal variation. EXPOSURES: Web-based data collection daily at each center to record relevant procedures, by category type and subtype. Adverse events were detected by (1) initial observation by participating physicians or staff; (2) active ascertainment from patients, who were encouraged to self-report after their procedure; and (3) follow-up postprocedural phone calls to patients by staff, if appropriate. When adverse events were not observed by physicians but were suspected, follow-up visits were scheduled within 24 hours to characterize these events. Detailed information regarding each adverse event was entered into an online form. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was the total incidence of procedure-related adverse events (total adverse events divided by total procedures performed), as verified by clinical examination.
RESULTS: Forty-eight adverse events were reported, for a rate of 0.24% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.31%). Overall, 36 procedures resulted in at least 1 adverse event, for a rate of 0.18% (95% CI, 0.13%-0.25%). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were infrequently associated with known risk factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Noninvasive to minimally invasive cosmetic dermatologic procedures, including energy, neurotoxin, and filler procedures, are safe when performed by experienced board-certified dermatologists. Adverse events occur in less than 1% of patients, and most of these are minor and transient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25372511     DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.2494

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Dermatol        ISSN: 2168-6068            Impact factor:   10.282


  6 in total

1.  Aesthetic Dermatologic Treatments: Consensus from the Experts.

Authors:  W Philip Werschler; Jacqueline M Calkin; David A Laub; Tess Mauricio; Vic A Narurkar; Phoebe Rich
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2015-10

2.  Nonphysician Practice of Cosmetic Dermatology: A Patient and Physician Perspective of Outcomes and Adverse Events.

Authors:  Anthony M Rossi; Britney Wilson; Brian P Hibler; Lynn A Drake
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.398

3.  Transparency and Dermatologic Device Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Harib H Ezaldein; Jeffrey F Scott; Emily S Yin; Alessandra Ventura; Nicholaas P DeRuyter; David J Leffell
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 10.282

Review 4.  Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Treatment of the Face and Neck Using Combinations of a PCL-Based Collagen Stimulator, PLLA/PLGA Suspension Sutures, and Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid.

Authors:  Francisco de Melo; Alieksiéi Carrijo; Kyungkook Hong; Bruno Trumbic; Franco Vercesi; Heidi A Waldorf; Sabine Zenker
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2020-05-05

5.  Dermal Filler Presenting as Parotid Mass: A Case Report.

Authors:  Arielle Coughlin; Mingyang L Gray; William H Westra; Marita S Teng; Joshua D Rosenberg
Journal:  Head Neck Pathol       Date:  2020-07-08

6.  Combining Calcium Hydroxylapatite and Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Aesthetic Indications: Efficacy of an Innovative Hybrid Filler.

Authors:  Nabil Fakih-Gomez; Jonathan Kadouch
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 2.326

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.