Background and Objectives: There is a wide diversity of opinions regarding the management of delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) secondary to hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers. The plethora of approaches has led the authors to conduct a review regarding management and treatment of DIRs as well as establish therapeutic guidelines for this purpose. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was performed through databases such as PubMed using keywords including HA-fillers and complications, delayed HA filler sequelae and therapy, soft tissue and dermal filler reactions and management. Additionally, a survey comprised of questions regarding the management and treatment of DIRs was sent to 18 physicians highly experienced with soft-tissue filler injections in 10 countries. Their answers and recommendations were analyzed and debated amongst these panelists. Results: Sixteen panelists favored antibiotic therapy as first-line treatment for DIRs, specifically dual antibiotic therapy consisting of a fluoroquinolone along with a tetracycline or macrolide for a period of 3-6 weeks. The majority refrained from the use of intralesional (IL) or systemic steroids except in the case of disfiguring or recalcitrant reactions. IL hyaluronidase was recommended by 13 panelists; however, some preferred a watchful waiting approach for a period of 48 hours to 2 weeks prior to IL hyaluronidase, and in cases where antibiotics did not lead to improvement. Conclusion: A consensus was reached and summarized to propose a clear, easy-to-follow, stepwise algorithm for the treatment of DIRs.

Expert consensus supports a combination approach using multiple modalities in specific sequence for the safe and effective treatment of the aging face.

BACKGROUND Lipedema is a chronic, progressive disorder of subcutaneous adipose tissue that usually affects the lower extremities of women. Also known as “two-body syndrome,” the fat accumulations in lipedema are unsightly and painful. The disorder is well-known in Europe but is largely unrecognized and underdiagnosed in the United States. OBJECTIVE To hold the First International Consensus Conference on Lipedema with the purpose of reviewing current European guidelines and the literature regarding the long-term benefits that have been reported to occur after lymph-sparing liposuction for lipedema using tumescent local anesthesia. METHODS International experts on liposuction for lipedema were convened as part of the First International Congress on Lipedema in Vienna, Austria, June 9 to 10, 2017. RESULTS Multiple studies from Germany have reported long-term benefits for as long as 8 years after liposuction for lipedema using tumescent local anesthesia. CONCLUSION Lymph-sparing liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is currently the only effective treatment for lipedema.

Background: Cosmetic treatment of the forehead using neuromodulators is challenging. To avoid adverse events, the underlying anatomy has to be understood and thoughtfully targeted. Clinical observations indicate that eyebrow ptosis can be avoided if neuromodulators are injected in the upper forehead, despite the frontalis muscle being the primary elevator. Methods: Twenty-seven healthy volunteers (11 men and 16 women) with a mean age of 37.5 ± 13.7 years (range, 22 to 73 years) and of diverse ethnicity (14 Caucasians, four African Americans, three Asians, and six of Middle Eastern descent) were enrolled. Skin displacement vector analyses were conducted on maximal frontalis muscle contraction to calculate magnitude and direction of forehead skin movement. Results: In 100 percent of investigated volunteers, a bidirectional movement of the forehead skin was observed: the skin of the lower forehead moved cranially, whereas the skin of the upper forehead moved caudally. Both movements converged at a horizontal forehead line termed the line of convergence, or C-line. The position of the C-line relative to the total height of the forehead was 60.9 ± 10.2 percent in men and 60.6 ± 9.6 percent in women (p = 0.941). Independent of sex, the C-line was located at the second horizontal forehead line when counting from superior to inferior (men, n = 2; women, n = 2). No difference across ethnicities was detected. Conclusions: The identification of the C-line may potentially guide practitioners toward more predictable outcomes for forehead neuromodulator injections. Injections above the C-line could mitigate the risk of neuromodulator-induced brow ptosis.