Aspiration Before Tissue Filler—An Exercise in Futility and Unsafe Practice

Background: Aesthetic physicians rely on certain anecdotal beliefs regarding the safe practice of filler injections. These include a presumed safety advantage of bolus injection after a negative aspiration. Objectives: The authors sought to review and summarize the published literature on inadvertent intravascular injection of hyaluronic acid and to investigate whether the technique of aspiration confers any safety to the practitioner and the patient. Methods: Pertinent literature was analyzed and the current understanding of the safety of negative and positive aspiration outlined. Results: The available studies demonstrate that aspiration cannot be relied on and should not be employed as a safety measure. It is safer to adopt injection techniques that avoid injecting an intravascular volume with embolic potential than utilize an unreliable test to permit a risky injection. Conclusions: To prevent intravascular injection, understanding "injection anatomy"and injection plane and techniques such as slow, low-pressure injection are important safety measures. Assurance of safety when delivering a bolus after negative aspiration does not appear to be borne out by the available literature. If there is any doubt about the sensitivity or reliability of a negative aspiration, there is no role for its utilization. Achieving a positive aspiration would just defer the risk to the next injection location where a negative aspiration would then be relied on

Surgical or Nonsurgical Facial Rejuvenation: The Patients’ Choice

Background:. Patients seeking a pan-facial rejuvenation may not receive appropriate medical advice on surgical versus nonsurgical treatments, resulting in those who are best-suited for surgery receiving nonsurgical options, and vice versa. Patients who requested total-face, nonsurgical revitalization were surveyed to understand the factors influencing this decision-making. Methods:. Patients consulting for total facial rejuvenation were surveyed on their reasons for seeking nonsurgical versus surgical interventions by an investigator with 30 years of plastic surgery experience, practicing in a nonsurgical clinic alongside a dermatologist and aesthetic physician. Results:. Of the 92 patients surveyed, 78% completed the survey, 47% of whom had considered facelift surgery, and 14% of whom proceeded to inquiries or consultations with a plastic surgeon about facelift surgery. All respondents were women, and age was not an exclusion factor. Forty-four percent would still consider facelifts in later life. Among the most common reasons for choosing nonsurgical approaches were a desire for natural and subtle results, cost, having flexibility in treatment choice, concerns about surgical and anesthesia risks, downtime, the ability to distribute treatments over time, and scarring. Conclusions:. Many patients book nonsurgical treatments without prior professional advice, and consider these as a temporary solution, but may desire surgery later in life. Before conducting nonsurgical treatments, doctors should identify this group and avoid interventions that may interfere with optimal surgical outcomes later. Also, some patients desire surgical outcomes when surgery is not a feasible option, and thus seek nonsurgical alternatives. For this group, realistic goals must be set before treatment to avoid disappointment