Adverse Events Associated with Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injection for Non-surgical Facial Aesthetics: A Systematic Review of High Level of Evidence Studies

Kyriazidis, Ioannis; Spyropoulou, Georgia-Alexandra; Zambacos, George; Tagka, Anna; Rakhorst, Hinne A.; Gasteratos, Konstantinos; Berner, Juan Enrique; Mandrekas, Apostolos

doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03465-1

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study using a visualized endoscopic injection technique for NASHA/Dx to treat SUI had few complications compared with using the Implacer system 97 . It is currently FDA approved for fecal incontinence, as a prostatic spacer for XRT, and as a common cosmetic dermal filler with few adverse events 98–100 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…97 It is currently FDA approved for fecal incontinence, as a prostatic spacer for XRT, and as a common cosmetic dermal filler with few adverse events. [98][99][100] Vinyl dimethyl polydimethylsiloxane (VPDMS), a 2-component silicone elastomer meant to increase durability of PDS, does not have FDA approval. A crosssectional study of patients treated with VPDMS recruited for a follow-up visit (mean follow-up time, 25 months) showed 60% of patients having some type of postoperative complication: 22% with retention, 15% with pain and dyspareunia.…”

Section: Safety/adverse Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urethral Bulking

Fleischmann,

Chughtai,

Plair

et al. 2024

UROGC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This Clinical Practice Statement aims to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidance for the use of urethral bulking agents (UBAs) in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods We conducted a structured search of the English literature published from January 1960 to November 2022. Search terms identified studies of both current and historic UBAs. Data extracted at the time of full-text review included type of study, research setting, number of participants, age group, bulking agent, primary outcome, secondary outcome, efficacy, and complications. Results One thousand five hundred ninety-four nonduplicate articles were identified using the search criteria. After limiting the article types to randomized control led trials, prospective studies, guideline documents, reviews, meta-analyses, and case reports of complications, 395 studies were screened. Conclusions Based on our findings, we propose the following recommendations for clinicians when considering UBA: First, UBA is indicated in cases of demonstrable SUI. Intrinsic sphincter deficiency is not predictive of patient outcomes. Second, patients should be counseled on the risks, lack of long-term efficacy data, potential need for repeat injections, possible need for surgery for recurrent SUI, implications for future procedures, and pelvic imaging findings that may be observed after UBA. Third, UBA may be considered for initial management of SUI. Fourth, UBA is an option for patients with persistent or recurrent SUI after a sling procedure. Fifth, clinicians may prioritize UBA over surgery in specific patient populations. Sixth, polyacrylamide hydrogel demonstrates marginally improved safety and durability data over other available agents.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%