[Sarcoid granulomas in facial cosmetic filler material: induction by interferon-α and ribavirin in a patient with hepatitis C]

Complication Management following Rejuvenation Procedures with Hyaluronic Acid Fillers-an Algorithm-based Approach

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid is an ideal facial filler, however, although established as both safe and effective, complications do occur. Treatment recommendations that combine both expert opinions and clinical trial data are currently lacking, partly due to difficulties with diagnoses, nonspecific diagnostic investigations, and certain disorders presenting with similar symptoms, thereby confounding diagnosis and treatment.

METHODS

The purpose of this article was to provide the aesthetic clinician with practical recommendations regarding complication diagnosis arising as a consequence of hyaluronic acid filler rejuvenation treatment. It also provides recommendations for their management using step-wise treatment algorithms that are based on published expert opinions, as well as the author's clinical experience.

RESULTS

Algorithms are provided for the most common categories of complication associated with hyaluronic acid filler treatment, that is, skin discoloration, edema, nodules, infection, and vascular compromise.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are not intended to be complete or exhaustive but may prove informative for aesthetic clinicians who are responsible for treating patients with hyaluronic acid fillers. It may help to guide them on recognizing potential complications and it provides clear guidance on optimum treatment pathways.

Granulomatous foreign-body reactions to permanent fillers: detection of CD123+ plasmacytoid dendritic cells

BACKGROUND

Soft-tissue augmentation with permanent fillers can lead to severe granulomatous foreign-body reactions (GFBRs), but the immune pathomechanism of this complication is still unknown. We performed conventional histologic examination and immunostaining for plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) in skin sections from patients with GFBR to 4 permanent filler agents, which have been widely used in recent decades.

METHODS

Twenty-one skin biopsies were studied from 19 patients with GFBR to polyalkylimide 4% gel (PAIG, n = 10), polyacrylamide 2.5% gel (PAAG, n = 2), hydroxyethyl methacrylate/ethyl methacrylate in hyaluronic acid (HEMA/EMA, n = 4), or liquid injectable silicone (n = 5). GFBRs were analyzed in hematoxylin and eosin stained sections and pDCs detected using CD123 antibodies. Anti-CD11c immunostaining was performed for comparison.

RESULTS

Grading of the inflammatory infiltrates observed histologically did not correlate with the clinical features of inflammation. Immunostaining for CD123 did not detect pDCs in 8 of 10 polyalkylimide gel, 1 of 2 polyacrylamide gel, and the 5 liquid injectable silicone biopsies. In contrast, all 4 HEMA/EMA biopsies contained collections of pDCs in lymphocytic infiltrates close to filler particles and adjacent sarcoidal granulomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that pDCs contribute to the sarcoidal granulomas associated with injected HEMA/EMA. Recruited pDCs may exert their pro-inflammatory effects by the release of interferon-α at the site of these filler deposits.