PEER-REVIEW | INJECTABLE TREATMENTS |
The aims of the study were to
determine the degree and extent of the side-effect
profile when using
microcannulae with dermal filler
treatments, specifically from a patient
perspective. Outline of study
The aims of the study were to determine the degree and extent of the side-effect profile when using microcannulae with dermal filler treatments, specifically from a patients perspective. A total of 76 female patients were enrolled in the study and all were treated with a microcannula. Either a 22 gauge (G) or a 25 G calibre was used depending on the area being injected. At the time of the treatment visit a total of 41% of patients had only one area treated, 38% had two areas treated, and 21% had three or more areas treated. The specific areas treated (Figure 1) were medial cheek (27%), centro-lateral cheek (9%), nasolabial fold (22%), melomental fold (30%), pre-jowl sulcus (5%), lower-cheek (1%), tear trough (5%), and hands (5%). All patients received a small bolus of lidocaine with adrenaline at the insertion point(s) to try and minimise discomfort and bruising at these entry points. To ensure that the post-treatment questionnaire
remained unbiased and anonymous, all treated patients were asked to complete an online questionnaire that did not identify or ask for their personal details. Grading scales were used for each of the key areas of analysis. These results were automatically emailed to the author. All results were based on a single treatment at the first
visit and do not include any treatment changes or ‘touch-ups’ made at the second follow-up visit.
Figure 2 Reported degree of pain or discomfort 93%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
82%
Figure 1 Place of injection 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
27% 22% 9% 5% 1%
Medial cheek
lateral cheek Centro- NLF
Melomental fold
Pre-jowl sulcus
Buccal fat pad
trough Tear Hands 5% 5%
30%
Pain and discomfort Patients were asked to grade the degree of pain and/or discomfort using a 0 to 10 scale with 0 representing no pain or discomfort at all and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable. A surprising 82% of treated patients reported no pain or discomfort during the procedure. A total of 11% of patients found the discomfort level tolerable, using a grading scale that ranged between 1 and 3, and 7% of patients graded the pain between 4 and 10 (Figure 2).
Erythema Patients were asked to grade the extent of visible erythema (redness) from none, mild (barely visible), moderate (visible but can be hidden with make-up), or severe (visible and cannot be hidden with make-up). A total of 70% of patients reported no visible erythema, 23% reported mild erythema and 7% reported moderate erythema (Figure 3). This indicates that post-procedure, the majority of patients treated with a microcannula will not have any visible erythema or if present, can be hidden with make-up. The results indicate that erythema is unlikely to impact on any social commitments that the patient may have following microcannula dermal filler treatments.
Figure 3 Extent of visible erythemya 100% 18% 11% No Yes 0 to 3 1 to 3 7% 2 to 3 5% 4 to 6 DID YOU FIND THE TREATMENT PAINFUL?
Degree of pain or discomfort patients reported using a 0 to 10 scale, with 0 representing no pain or discomfort at all and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable
72 ❚ October 2013 |
prime-journal.com 2% 7 to 10 7% 4 to 10
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
93% 70%
23% 7% 0% None Mild Moderate Severe REDNESS
Grades patients reported on the extent of visible erythema (redness) as none, mild (barely visible), moderate (visible but can be hidden with make-up), severe (visible and cannot be hidden with make-up)
None to mild None to moderate
Patient %
Specifc area treated %
Patient %
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100