Pereira IN, Hassan H. Impact of botulinum toxin for facial aesthetics on psychological well-being and quality of life: Evidence-based review.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022;
75:4450-4463. [PMID:
36274011 DOI:
10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.063]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
There has been a steady growth of non-surgical minimally invasive procedures. In parallel, an ever-broadening range of clinicians has been engaging with botulinum toxin (BoNT) for aesthetic procedures, with reportedly compound positive impact on social health and psychological well-being.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and critically appraise current literature on the impact of BoNT injections into the upper face, as a sole treatment/combination with other modalities on facial aesthetics, psychological well-being, and quality-of-life.
METHODS
An evidence-based review was performed using advanced search from PubMed, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Central Register of Controlled Trials databases . Only literature from inception to August, 2021 were considered. Eligibility criteria included human studies, FDA-approved BoNT applications, formulations, and dosages as a sole/multimodal approach; studies including patient-reported outcome tools psychometrically validated and facial lines-specific. Observer-reported outcome instruments were also considered for a thorough evaluation of outcomes.
RESULTS
Based on data investigations and participant assessments, all studies showed statistically significant improvement in psychosocial well-being and quality-of-life domains with a trend for highest impact when multiple upper facial areas are treated in a multimodal approach.
CONCLUSION
Aesthetic BoNT showed links to true health benefits for well-selected patients in addition to physical amelioration. However, the biological rational remains ambiguous. Well-designed controlled trials are needed, without pharmaceutical laboratories bias, in real clinical scenarios of patients paying for the interventions, often involving multiple areas with/without combined treatments. The persistence of positive outcomes following repetitive treatments provided by less experienced practitioners, potentially involving suboptimal patient selection and/or aesthetic results, warrants further investigation.
Collapse