OBJECTIVES: To ascertain by MRI the presence of filler injected into facial soft tissue and characterize complications by contrast enhancement. METHODS: Nineteen volunteers without complications were initially investigated to study the MRI features of facial fillers. We then studied another 26 patients with clinically diagnosed filler-related complications using contrast-enhanced MRI. TSE-T1-weighted, TSE-T2-weighted, fat-saturated TSE-T2-weighted, and TIRM axial and coronal scans were performed in all patients, and contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed TSE-T1-weighted scans were performed in complicated patients, who were then treated with antibiotics. Patients with soft-tissue enhancement and those without enhancement but who did not respond to therapy underwent skin biopsy. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: MRI identified and quantified the extent of fillers. Contrast enhancement was detected in 9/26 patients, and skin biopsy consistently showed inflammatory granulomatous reaction, whereas in 5/17 patients without contrast enhancement, biopsy showed no granulomas. Fisher's exact test showed significant correlation (p < 0.001) between subcutaneous contrast enhancement and granulomatous reaction. Cervical lymph node enlargement (longitudinal axis >10 mm) was found in 16 complicated patients (65 %; levels IA/IB/IIA/IIB). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a useful non-invasive tool for anatomical localization of facial dermal filler; IV gadolinium administration is advised in complicated cases for characterization of granulomatous reaction. KEY POINTS: • MRI is a non-invasive tool for facial dermal filler detection and localization. • MRI-criteria to evaluate complicated/non-complicated cases after facial dermal filler injections are defined. • Contrast-enhanced MRI detects subcutaneous inflammatory granulomatous reaction due to dermal filler. • 65 % patients with filler-related complications showed lymph-node enlargement versus 31.5 % without complications. • Lymph node enlargement involved cervical levels (IA/IB/IIA/IIB) that drained treated facial areas.
OBJECTIVES: To ascertain by MRI the presence of filler injected into facial soft tissue and characterize complications by contrast enhancement. METHODS: Nineteen volunteers without complications were initially investigated to study the MRI features of facial fillers. We then studied another 26 patients with clinically diagnosed filler-related complications using contrast-enhanced MRI. TSE-T1-weighted, TSE-T2-weighted, fat-saturated TSE-T2-weighted, and TIRM axial and coronal scans were performed in all patients, and contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed TSE-T1-weighted scans were performed in complicated patients, who were then treated with antibiotics. Patients with soft-tissue enhancement and those without enhancement but who did not respond to therapy underwent skin biopsy. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: MRI identified and quantified the extent of fillers. Contrast enhancement was detected in 9/26 patients, and skin biopsy consistently showed inflammatory granulomatous reaction, whereas in 5/17 patients without contrast enhancement, biopsy showed no granulomas. Fisher's exact test showed significant correlation (p < 0.001) between subcutaneous contrast enhancement and granulomatous reaction. Cervical lymph node enlargement (longitudinal axis >10 mm) was found in 16 complicated patients (65 %; levels IA/IB/IIA/IIB). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a useful non-invasive tool for anatomical localization of facial dermal filler; IV gadolinium administration is advised in complicated cases for characterization of granulomatous reaction. KEY POINTS: • MRI is a non-invasive tool for facial dermal filler detection and localization. • MRI-criteria to evaluate complicated/non-complicated cases after facial dermal filler injections are defined. • Contrast-enhanced MRI detects subcutaneous inflammatory granulomatous reaction due to dermal filler. • 65 % patients with filler-related complications showed lymph-node enlargement versus 31.5 % without complications. • Lymph node enlargement involved cervical levels (IA/IB/IIA/IIB) that drained treated facial areas.
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Thuy Khanh Nguyen; Michael S Middleton; Mary Scott Soo; Gene Pennello; S Lori Brown Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C William Hanke; Rod J Rohrich; Mariano Busso; Alastair Carruthers; Jean Carruthers; Steven Fagien; Rebecca Fitzgerald; Richard Glogau; Phyllis E Greenberger; Z Paul Lorenc; Ellen S Marmur; Gary D Monheit; Andrea Pusic; Mark G Rubin; Berthold Rzany; Anthony Sclafani; Susan Taylor; Susan Weinkle; Michael F McGuire; David M Pariser; Laurie A Casas; Karen J Collishaw; Roger A Dailey; Stephen C Duffy; Elizabeth Jan Edgar; Barbara L Greenan; Kelly Haenlein; Ronald A Henrichs; Keith M Hume; Flora Lum; David R Nielsen; Lisle Poulsen; Lori Shoaf; William Seward; Wendy Smith Begolka; Robert G Stanton; Katherine J Svedman; J Regan Thomas; Jonathan M Sykes; Carol Wargo; Robert A Weiss Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: C Requena; M J Izquierdo; M Navarro; A Martínez; J J Vilata; R Botella; J Amorrortu; V Sabater; A Aliaga; L Requena Journal: Am J Dermatopathol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 1.533
Authors: Gustavo Bello; Ian T Jackson; Mustafa Keskin; Chris Kelly; Khaled Dajani; Rebecca Studinger; Elizabeth M H Kim; Denis Lincoln; Boris Silberberg; Andrus Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Sigal Tal; Hillel S Maresky; Theodore Bryan; Ella Ziv; Dov Klein; Assaf Persitz; Lior Heller Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 2.151