| Literature DB >> 32440421 |
Zoya Diwan1, Sanjay Trikha1, Sepideh Etemad-Shahidi1, Zunaid Alli1,2, Christopher Rennie1,3, Amanda Penny1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tear trough (TT) treatment with hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers is an increasingly popular aesthetic procedure. The traditional needle technique is cited many times in the literature with no studies looking at the results, complications and satisfaction rate with the use of the cannula device instead. The aims of this study are to describe the experience of 4 aesthetic doctors in the treatment of TT deformity and assess complications and side effects, overall satisfaction and improvement.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32440421 PMCID: PMC7209844 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open ISSN: 2169-7574
Patient-specific Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Study
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
| Patient consented to be part of the study | Smoker |
| Clear indication for TT filler using Lambros and Hirmand criteria | Performs heavy exercise >4 times per week |
| Under the age of 18 or over the age of 65 | |
| Regular sunbed, sauna, and steam room user (>1 per week) | |
| Allergy to HA filler, lidocaine or local anesthetic cream | |
| Have had TT filler in the past | |
| Patient has semi-permanent or permanent fillers in situ in TT region or have had previous surgery in the area | |
| Current infection in the area |
Treatment-specific Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Study
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
| Cannula used for treatment for medial TT | Unable to carry out review |
| Medial TT must be filled at supra-periosteal plane, at or inferior to orbital rim | |
| Only 1 ml used as maximum total between both eyes | |
| Patient reviewed at 2 weeks and 4 weeks (this can be face-to-face, video call or telephone consultation with supporting photography) |
Fig. 1.Illustrating the “true” TT deformity, the palpebromalar groove (PMG) the nasojugal groove (NJG) and the mid-cheek junction (MCJ).[10]
Lambros Criteria[3]
| Lambros Criteria Score (Total Out of 4): |
|---|
| Good skin quality (0 = poor, 1 = good) |
| Groove definition (0 = poor, 1 = good) |
| Orbital Fat presence (0 = present, 1 = not present) |
| Pigmentation (0 = present, 1 = not present) |
Fig. 2.Hirmand grading.
Average Amount Placed in TT Relative to Lambros Grading
| Lambros | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | |||
| Right | Left | Right | Left | Right | Left |
| 0.35 ml | 0.4 ml | 0.43 ml | 0.43 ml | 0.45 ml | 0.39 ml |
| Average = 0.38 ml (n = 2) | Average = 0.43 ml (n = 20) | Average = 0.42 ml (n = 26) | |||
Each figure is an average of all figures within the grade. Each TT assessed separately, therefore, total = 48 TTs and 24 patients.
Average Amount Placed in TT Relative to Hirmand Grading
| Hirmand | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | |||
| Right | Left | Right | Left | Right | Left |
| 0.35 ml | 0.28 ml | 0.46 ml | 0.44 ml | 0.48 ml | 0.44 ml |
| Average = 0.32 (n = 10) | Average = 0.45 ml (n = 25) | Average = 0.46 ml (n = 13) | |||
Each figure is an average of all figures within the grade. Each TT assessed separately, therefore, total = 48 TTs and 24 patients, as many patients had differing right and left TT Hirmand grade.
Fig. 3.Patient satisfaction rate (by week 4) vs Hirmand grade.
Fig. 4.Patient satisfaction rate (by week 4) vs Lambros grade.
Fig. 5.This patient was classed as Hirmand grade 2 and Lambros grade 3 (pigmentation present) bilaterally. She had 0.5 ml per TT and no other treatments. This patient was not satisfied fully at the 4-week mark as she wanted to work more on pigmentation. She did note an overall improvement to her TT.
Fig. 8.This patient was classed as Hirmand grade 1 and Lambros grade 4 bilaterally. She had 0.2 ml L TT and 0.25 ml R TT. This patient was happy with the results.