Nonsurgical reshaping of the nose, chin, and jawline: A retrospective analysis using experience‐based eligibility criteria

Abstract

Surgical treatments of the nose, chin, and jawline-such as rhinoplasty and chin augmentation-remain popular in aesthetic medicine. 1,2 However, the overall numbers of such procedures are declining year on year. 1,2 A key factor underlying this trend is the increased use of nonsurgical alternatives based on minimally invasive, injectable products such as hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. This is partly driven by patients themselves, who often present with a desire for simple procedures with immediate results, frequently arising out of peer pressure from social media and other online "influencers". 3,4 Injectables can also offer clinically meaningful advantages compared with surgery in selected individuals, including a reduced risk of complications and shorter recovery time. 5,6 HA fillers have the additional

Choosing Juvéderm Volux™ to chin augmentation: Case report and flowchart for clinical evaluation

“…Injectable fillers are minimally invasive, require minimal or no downtime, incurring minimal risk, and allow practitioners to model the chin in horizontal, transverse, and vertical dimensions [ 2 , 11 ]. VYC-25 L (Juvéderm® Volux™) is the first HA filler developed for chin augmentation to be systematically analyzed.…”

Nonsurgical rhinoplasty using the hyaluronic acid filler VYC‐25L: Safety and patient satisfaction in a retrospective analysis of 492 patients

“…Nonetheless, the study had two key strengths—the large size of the cohort (984 treatment sessions in 492 patients) and the ethnic diversity of those enrolled—which suggest the results may be broadly generalizable to experienced injectors wherever in the world they practice. A second limitation of this work is that no “objective” analyses of effectiveness were made, for example based on the evaluation of nasal angles; such assessments were not part of routine practice in this retrospective study but other investigators have demonstrated that VYC‐25L treatment of the nose can yield meaningful changes in these measurements 8 . A third possible limitation is that the median follow‐up of 11.1 months may not have allowed all delayed‐onset AEs to be captured.…”

“…A second limitation of this work is that no "objective" analyses of effectiveness were made, for example based on the evaluation of nasal angles; such assessments were not part of routine practice in this retrospective study but other investigators have demonstrated that VYC-25L treatment of the nose can yield meaningful changes in these measurements. 8 A third possible limitation is that the median follow-up of 11.1 months may not have allowed all delayed-onset AEs to be captured. However, a recent large-scale analysis with the related filler, VYC-20, found that such events were rare (~1% of patients) and occurred a median of 4 months post-treatment.…”

“…6,7 In addition, several recent "real world" studies have shown that VYC-25L is safe and effective for aesthetic improvement of the nose, based on standardized approaches to treatment. 4,8,9 However, these studies included only modest numbers of patients. Given the risks associated with filler-based nasal treatment-particularly relating to rare but potentially devastating complications like necrosis and blindness 10,11 -it is important to evaluate the safety profile in large patient cohorts treated in routine practice.…”

“…In a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of patients requesting chin and jaw restoration, VYC‐25L treatment was associated with increased Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and durable responses on the FACE‐Q Satisfaction and Psychological Well‐Being Scales 6,7 . In addition, several recent “real world” studies have shown that VYC‐25L is safe and effective for aesthetic improvement of the nose, based on standardized approaches to treatment 4,8,9 . However, these studies included only modest numbers of patients.…”