Subject and partner satisfaction with lip and perioral enhancement using flexible hyaluronic acid fillers

Unveiling Patient Expectations: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study on Facial Aesthetic Treatments

BACKGROUND

Patient expectations play a crucial role in aesthetic treatments, influencing satisfaction of treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore and assess the expectations of 102 participants undergoing various cosmetic interventions using the FACE-Q expectations scale.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants, aged 20 to 64 years, seeking different facial aesthetic procedures completed the FACE-Q expectations scale before treatment. Data were analyzed, and the influence of age and treatment type on expectations was investigated.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed moderate overall expectations among participants, with no significant differences across different treatment modalities (p = .263). However, age significantly influenced expectations (p = .009), with younger adults (30-39 years) exhibiting higher expectations compared with older age groups. Correlation analysis confirmed a significant weak negative correlation between age and expectations (r = -0.210, p = .034). Multiple linear regression further identified age as a significant predictor of expectations (β = -0.564, p = .037).

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into patient expectations in facial aesthetic procedures, emphasizing the role of age in shaping expectations. These findings underscored consistent beliefs in positive outcomes, irrespective of the cosmetic procedure to be realized. Future research should consider international collaborations and longitudinal studies to enhance understanding and optimize patient satisfaction in aesthetic treatments.

Satisfaction Among Recipients of Cosmetic Facial Filling Procedures at Dermatology Clinics in Saudi Arabia: A National Study

Purpose

Facial cosmetic procedures, known for their rising popularity, frequently yield high patient satisfaction. However, certain patient characteristics may influence this satisfaction. Additionally, patients' satisfaction can affect their attitudes and preferences toward these procedures and recommendations to others. Our study aimed to assess post-procedure satisfaction among individuals who have undergone cosmetic facial filling procedures at dermatology clinics.

Patients and Methods

This cross-sectional study targeted the Saudi population who had undergone cosmetic facial filling procedures, excluding individuals under 18, those with a history of mental health disorders, or invasive surgical procedures, as well as those unable or unwilling to provide informed consent. Data were collected using a comprehensive questionnaire covering demographics, procedure details, satisfaction, and future plans. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess self-perception and satisfaction. The questionnaire was developed after expert consultation and a literature review, with overall satisfaction calculated as the mean of all items.

Results

In this study of 408 participants in Saudi Arabia, predominantly young, unmarried females, high satisfaction levels were observed following cosmetic facial filling procedures, with a mean score of 3.9 for procedure results and 3.8 for meeting expectations. Most participants were Saudi nationals (97.8%), aged below 25 (41.7%), and held Bachelor's degrees (80.6%), with a majority being females (87.7%). Notably, factors significantly affecting overall satisfaction included gender (p = 0.001), marital status (p = 0.023), income (p = 0.031), procedure duration (p = 0.003), and procedure type (p = 0.046). These findings offer crucial insights for enhancing patient experiences and outcomes in cosmetic facial filling procedures.

Conclusion

This study unveiled substantial self-satisfaction levels, particularly regarding appearance and social well-being, emphasizing the significance of informative pre-procedure guidance, while gender, marital status, income, procedure duration, and type significantly impacted satisfaction. Healthcare providers must heed these factors to enhance patient contentment and overall procedure success.

The Use of Facial Fillers in Clinical Practice: The Level of Patient Satisfaction and an Overview of Common Clinical Complications

BACKGROUND

Patient esthetic satisfaction following facial fillers is an essential topic that should be studied as the number of individuals seeking treatment increases. The face is an essential component of the human body that is frequently associated with beauty, youthfulness, and health. Individuals may seek facial augmentation with fillers for a variety of reasons, such as congenital, acquired by means of aging or disease, or current aesthetic trends.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess patient's aesthetic satisfaction and description of common clinical complications in relation to the facial filler injections.

METHOD

A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire derived from the global aesthetic improvement scale and WHO quality of life scale, convenience sampling was used to recruit patients attending cosmetic clinics, descriptive analysis and Chi-square methods were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In the study, 500 female participants, with an average age of 28.48 years, were included. Over 90% reported improvement after filler treatment, ranging from improved to very much improved. A statistically significant correlation was observed between patient satisfaction and the number of filler treatments and the anatomical injection site. However, no statistically significant correlation was found when considering age groups. Local side effects, such as swelling and redness at the injection site, were common but generally mild and of short duration.

CONCLUSION

Although the satisfaction level is currently high, practitioners in the field need to pay more attention to this important outcome, since understanding the patient's motivation and expectation before proceeding with the procedure is very important and can contribute significantly in determining patient satisfaction with the result.

The Use of Facial Fillers in Clinical Practice: The Level of Patient Satisfaction and an Overview of Common Clinical Complications

BACKGROUND

Patient esthetic satisfaction following facial fillers is an essential topic that should be studied as the number of individuals seeking treatment increases. The face is an essential component of the human body that is frequently associated with beauty, youthfulness, and health. Individuals may seek facial augmentation with fillers for a variety of reasons, such as congenital, acquired by means of aging or disease, or current aesthetic trends.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess patient's aesthetic satisfaction and description of common clinical complications in relation to the facial filler injections.

METHOD

A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire derived from the global aesthetic improvement scale and WHO quality of life scale, convenience sampling was used to recruit patients attending cosmetic clinics, descriptive analysis and Chi-square methods were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In the study, 500 female participants, with an average age of 28.48 years, were included. Over 90% reported improvement after filler treatment, ranging from improved to very much improved. A statistically significant correlation was observed between patient satisfaction and the number of filler treatments and the anatomical injection site. However, no statistically significant correlation was found when considering age groups. Local side effects, such as swelling and redness at the injection site, were common but generally mild and of short duration.

CONCLUSION

Although the satisfaction level is currently high, practitioners in the field need to pay more attention to this important outcome, since understanding the patient's motivation and expectation before proceeding with the procedure is very important and can contribute significantly in determining patient satisfaction with the result.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale to Assess Marionette Lines

BACKGROUND

A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of marionette lines before and after treatment in clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and validation of a 5-point photonumeric marionette lines scale.

METHODS

The scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, and real and morphed subject images for each scale grade. Intrarater and interrater reliability was evaluated in initial scale validation (web-based review) ( N = 51 ) and live-subject validation ( N = 75 ) studies, each completed during 2 sessions.

RESULTS

In the initial scale validation study, intrarater agreement for 2 physician raters was near perfect (weighted kappa = 0.92 and 0.94). Interrater agreement was excellent during sessions 1 and 2 (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94 and 0.95, respectively). In the live-subject validation study, intrarater agreement for 3 physician raters showed a strong correlation (mean weighted kappa = 0.77). Interrater agreement was high during live-subject validation sessions 1 and 2 (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.89 for both sessions).

CONCLUSION

This new marionette lines scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of marionette line severity.

Real-World Outcomes of Lip Augmentation Using a Hyaluronic Acid-Based Filler With Low 1,4-Butanediol Diglycidyl Ether Content: A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter, Post-marketing Study

Background 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE) is the most common cross-linker used to produce hyaluronic acid (HA)-based dermal fillers. However, BDDE may have cytotoxic and potentially mutagenic effects, raising safety concerns. Consequently, manufacturers are developing new HA filler formulations with reduced BDDE levels to mitigate potential biological risks. Here, we sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of lip augmentation performed using an HA-based filler with a reduced BDDE content (Agex Fill Volume®; Biodue SpA, Barberino Tavarnelle, Italy) in a real-world clinical setting. Methods This was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, post-marketing study conducted over six months. Thirty adult subjects (29 women and one man) who desired a ≥1-point improvement on the validated Lip Fullness Scale 2 (LFS2) were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was the post-procedural increase in the investigator-reported LFS2 compared to baseline. Other endpoints included self-perceived happiness assessed using the Happiness Measure Scale (HMS) and safety. Results Of the study participants, 73% (22/30) demonstrated an improvement of at least one point in their LFS2 scores immediately after treatment compared to baseline, thus qualifying as responders. Six months later, the responder rate, based on LFS2 scores, remained steady at 66.7% (20/30). Importantly, these aesthetic improvements were consistently associated with a positive impact on subject-reported HMS, with a significant difference (p < 0.001) between post-treatment and baseline scores. All adverse events (AEs) reported after treatment were mild. Conclusions Agex Fill Volume®, a HA filler with low BDDE content, provides a safe and effective option for enhancing lip volume in real-world aesthetic settings.

Comparison of 2 Fillers for Lip Injection-A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial Assessed by 3D Imaging

Background

Lip aging is a concern for many, and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are a popular solution.

Objectives

This study compared 2 different HA gel technologies (OBT and NASHA) for lip augmentation in 20 volunteers.

Methods

Both groups received treatment from the same injector using the same method. Lip volume was measured with a 3D stereophotogrammetry device before, immediately after, and 30 days posttreatment. Patient satisfaction and adverse events were assessed through FACE-Q scales analysis.

Results

The NASHA group showed an immediate volume increase (P = .01), which decreased after 30 days. The OBT group did not show a significant immediate growth (P = .535) but did exhibit a significant increase after 30 days (P = .014). After 30 days, there were no significant volume differences between the groups (P = .802 and P = .999). FACE-Q analysis revealed no significant differences among groups after 30 days.

Conclusions

This study highlights that less cohesive gels may modify faster in dynamic lip areas, emphasizing the importance of selecting products based on their physicochemical and rheological properties. In the context of lip augmentation with HA, it is important not to consider immediate aesthetic changes as definitive results, as volume changes may persist and develop over time after the treatment.

Level of Evidence 2

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature.

METHODS

A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis.

RESULTS

There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.