Publication: Legal vs. illegal injectable fillers: The adverse effects comparison study
Issued Date
2020-07-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14732165
14732130
14732130
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85085870357
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Vol.19, No.7 (2020), 1580-1586
Suggested Citation
Onjuta Chayangsu, Rungsima Wanitphakdeedecha, Penvadee Pattanaprichakul, Inneke Jane Hidajat, Kristy Elleza R. Evangelista, Woraphong Manuskiatti Legal vs. illegal injectable fillers: The adverse effects comparison study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Vol.19, No.7 (2020), 1580-1586. doi:10.1111/jocd.13492 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/58095
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Legal vs. illegal injectable fillers: The adverse effects comparison study
Abstract
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, LLC Background: Over the past decades, soft-tissue filler injections have become an essential part of cosmetic practice worldwide. Due to the increasing demand, unlicensed practitioners venture in performing this minimally invasive procedure, injecting illegal fillers that pose serious complications. Objectives: To compare the adverse effects of legal and illegal soft-tissue fillers injected by licensed and unlicensed practitioners. Materials and methods: A 10-year retrospective, descriptive, single-center study conducted at the outpatient dermatology department and skin laser center at Siriraj Hospital from January 2009 to December 2019. Patients were identified as having treatment-related complications. Their demographic data, clinical history, and injection history were reviewed. Results: Forty patients with mean age of 37 years old were included in the study. Thirty-five of them (87.5%) were female. Illegal soft-tissue fillers were used in 28 patients (70%) and were performed by unlicensed practitioners (18 cases, 64.3%, P =.001). Adverse effects from illegal fillers (26 cases, 92.9%) developed longer than legal fillers (7 cases, 58.3%) (P =.017). Symptoms significantly lasted longer in patients injected with illegal fillers, 10 (0.07-288) weeks, as compared to patients injected with legal fillers 0.75 (0.14-72) weeks (P =.01). Injections from illegal fillers resulted to foreign body reaction (22 cases, 78.6%) and infections (6 cases, 21.4%). Vascular complications were identified in legal fillers injections (5 cases, 41.7%). Conclusions: The incidence of adverse effects and complications from soft-tissue filler injections are superior when performed by novice injectors and unlicensed practitioners using illegal fillers. Proper training of filler injections, selection of appropriate fillers, and early recognition of adverse effects are critically important to the success of treatments.