INTRODUCTION: Botulinum toxin is widely used in glabellar musculature. The authors express the need to individualize the approach by means of muscular identification to improve effectiveness. Despite these guidelines, the fixed-point technique is still used. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of effectiveness of botulinum toxin administration in the glabellar zone by using fixed-site application versus objective-muscle-identification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prolective dynamic cohort study. Patients (after previous informed consent) were assessed on their facial expressions, level of satisfaction, re-interventions, adverse effects, dosage, dilution, and number of injections. All patients who experienced either of both techniques of botulinum toxin administration (fixed-site or objective-muscle-identification) were subjected to followup by the following parameters: statistical analysis: student's t Test (inter-group mean comparisons), paired student's t test (intra-group mean comparisons), χ (2) with Fisher exact text. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were evaluated (31 fixed-site approach, 31 objective-muscle-identification). No patient abandoned the trial during followup. Fixed-site injections required larger doses (16 vs 12 U, p = 0.001), greater volume (0.48 vs. 0.37 ml, p = 0.001), and more application sites (4 vs 2, p = 0.001), compared to the objective-muscle-identification approach. Under the objective-muscle-identification technique, facial expressions were better attenuated (52 vs 65%, p = 0.001), with a higher initial satisfaction level (6 vs 9, p = 0.001) and final satisfaction level (9 vs 9.9, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin application is more effective when administered through the objective-muscle-identification approach (less frowning, lower doses, less fixed sites injected, and patients more satisfied at the end). 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.
INTRODUCTION: Botulinum toxin is widely used in glabellar musculature. The authors express the need to individualize the approach by means of muscular identification to improve effectiveness. Despite these guidelines, the fixed-point technique is still used. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of effectiveness of botulinum toxin administration in the glabellar zone by using fixed-site application versus objective-muscle-identification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prolective dynamic cohort study. Patients (after previous informed consent) were assessed on their facial expressions, level of satisfaction, re-interventions, adverse effects, dosage, dilution, and number of injections. All patients who experienced either of both techniques of botulinum toxin administration (fixed-site or objective-muscle-identification) were subjected to followup by the following parameters: statistical analysis: student's t Test (inter-group mean comparisons), paired student's t test (intra-group mean comparisons), χ (2) with Fisher exact text. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were evaluated (31 fixed-site approach, 31 objective-muscle-identification). No patient abandoned the trial during followup. Fixed-site injections required larger doses (16 vs 12 U, p = 0.001), greater volume (0.48 vs. 0.37 ml, p = 0.001), and more application sites (4 vs 2, p = 0.001), compared to the objective-muscle-identification approach. Under the objective-muscle-identification technique, facial expressions were better attenuated (52 vs 65%, p = 0.001), with a higher initial satisfaction level (6 vs 9, p = 0.001) and final satisfaction level (9 vs 9.9, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin application is more effective when administered through the objective-muscle-identification approach (less frowning, lower doses, less fixed sites injected, and patients more satisfied at the end). 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.