Ocular and Periocular Tattoo Adverse Effects: A Review

BACKGROUND

Ocular and periocular tattoos, involving ink application to the eyeball or surrounding skin, have gained popularity as forms of self-expression. However, this trend raises significant concerns about potential complications that can adversely affect ocular health and esthetics. Awareness of these risks is crucial for both patients and practitioners.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on studies discussing complications related to ocular and periocular tattooing. Relevant studies were identified through the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid databases. The reviewed papers were evaluated based on study design, including blinding, sample size, control use, randomization, and objective endpoints, and classified according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine evidence hierarchy.

RESULTS

The review identified a wide range of complications, including immediate issues like bleeding, infections (conjunctivitis, endophthalmitis), and allergic reactions. Delayed reactions included granuloma formation, often requiring further treatment. The most serious risk identified was potential visual impairment due to improper technique or ink placement.

CONCLUSIONS

With the growing trend in ocular and periocular tattooing, there is an urgent need for increased awareness of associated risks. It is crucial to ensure that only qualified professionals perform these procedures, emphasizing the importance of understanding ocular anatomy. Developing strict regulatory guidelines and prioritizing research on the long-term effects of these tattoos are essential for patient safety. A collaborative approach among healthcare providers, regulatory bodies, and educational institutions is needed to mitigate risks and promote best practices in cosmetic tattooing.

Permanent Makeup Removal Severe Complication-Case Report and Proposal of the Protocol for Its Management

Background: The purpose of this paper is to report the case of a patient who developed a local allergic reaction to the pigment used for permanent eyebrow makeup. In addition, the authors' protocol for the treatment of such a complication is proposed. Methods: A patient visited the clinic to remove permanent eyebrow makeup. In the patient's opinion, the eyebrows were too dark and incorrectly shaped. Upon physical examination of the brows, they were found to be over-pigmented and drawn outside the area of hair growth of the natural brow. Results: The patient underwent 24 treatment procedures to remove the pigmentation including four sessions of laser therapy and subsequent treatments using a chemical substance (remover). No adverse effects occurred during the initial phase of makeup removal (black pigment removal), but an allergic reaction appeared with the removal of the red-orange colored pigment (after the fourth laser therapy session). The following symptoms appeared: redness, swelling, and the appearance of papules filled with both serous fluid and pigment used for the permanent makeup. After each remover treatment, the allergic reaction decreased, and local symptoms gradually subsided. Additionally, topical corticosteroid treatment was implemented peri-procedurally. The patient's case suggests a secondary allergic reaction to the red-orange pigment used for permanent makeup. Conclusions: The literature on this topic is scarce; therefore, we present a regimen for the management of such complications. In addition, we draw attention to the fact that allergic reactions to pigment may not always occur immediately following skin pigmentation but may become apparent long after the procedure, such as when the allergen is "exposed" during an attempt to remove or correct the makeup.