Please upgrade to the latest version of Flash Player.

Click here if you already have Flash Player installed.

Please upgrade to the latest version of Flash Player.

Click here if you already have Flash Player installed.

Plastic Surgeon Dr. Michele Koo’s Blog | St. Louis | Kansas City Facial Creases, Lines, and Wrinkles

Posts Tagged ‘Facial Creases, Lines, and Wrinkles’

Your Face Doesn’t Have to Look Wrinkled and Tired…

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Dr Michele Koo, MD, FACS is a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon in St Louis, Missouri who has extensive experience with Juvederm and other fillers to minimize and plump those deep creases on your face. In 30-40 minutes in the office, Dr Koo will be able to fill those deep nasolabial folds, corners of your downturned mouth, and soften your lips to keep you from looking so sad and gaunt.

As we age and try to eat right and maintain our weight, our faces become volume depleted and the lines seem to deepen as the skin begins to lose its elasticity. With BOTOX AND JUVEDERM (FILLER), Dr Koo is able to soften your face and fill those deep crevices of your nasolabial folds and marionette lines of your chin. She can just ever so slightly plump your lips so your face is not so drawn and shrunken. Dr Koo is very subtle and gentle with her application of BOTOX AND JUVEDERM and you will not appear “done” or obvious with your BOTOX AND JUVEDERM. You will look rested and rejuvenated in 30 minutes!!

Dr Koo wants you to understand the safety of JUVEDERM and the following is the continuation of the article by Dr Mary Lupo as it appeared in the Plastic & Reconstructive Journal, January 2008.

Safety
The occurrence of treatment site reactions was similar for Juvéderm Ultra Plus and Zyplast. The majority of individual treatment-site reactions (e.g., erythema, induration, pain, edema, nodule, bruising, pruritus, and discoloration) lasted for no more than 7 days and were mild or moderate in severity, with no intervention required. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported for Juvéderm Ultra Plus, and there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.

Effectiveness
Initial Treatment Period
Although the mean correction after treatment was similar for both products, nasolabial fold severity scores from the treating investigators for the Juvéderm Ultra Plus filler were significantly better (lower) than for Zyplast at each follow-up time point from 4 to 24 weeks (Fig. 1). Over the 24-week period, the scores for Zyplast nearly returned to baseline (mean, 2.5), whereas the Juvéderm Ultra Plus scores remained low (mean, 1.3-equivalent to a mild wrinkle). Not surprisingly, the level of improvement in nasolabial fold severity score for both fillers was greatest at 2 weeks after the last treatment. At 24 weeks, the mean improvement was still 1.7 with the Juvéderm Ultra Plus product but only 0.5 with bovine collagen (Fig. 2). Clinically significant improvement (defined as mean greater than or equal to a one-point improvement relative to baseline) was maintained with Juvéderm Ultra Plus but not with bovine collagen at 24 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. The proportion of nasolabial folds showing significant improvement was consistently high for Juvéderm Ultra Plus (≥96 percent) but not so with collagen (41 percent at 24 weeks). Furthermore, 67 percent of the Juvéderm nasolabial folds had at least a two-point improvement at this 6-month visit (Fig. 3). Subject assessments of effectiveness were similar to those of the investigators. An overwhelming majority of subjects preferred Juvéderm Ultra Plus (85 percent) versus collagen (10 percent) or no preference (5 percent).

Among the subjects who returned at 1 year or beyond, assessments just before repeated treatment showed that 81 percent of subjects with severe nasolabial folds at baseline who were treated with Juvéderm Ultra Plus had maintained at least a one-point improvement in nasolabial fold severity and that 38 percent had at least a two-point improvement (Fig. 3), with a mean improvement of 1.3.

Repeated Treatment Period
The volume of Juvéderm Ultra Plus required to achieve optimal correction was significantly less at repeated treatment than at initial treatment. The median volume of Juvéderm Ultra Plus injected at initial treatment was two syringes (1.6 ml), and at repeated treatment 6 to 9 months later it was less than one syringe (0.7 ml).

Trends in Wrinkle Assessment Scale scores for the subset of subjects who were followed up to 48 weeks after their repeated treatments mirrored those observed in the initial study period. Although the sample size was small at 48 weeks, clinically significant mean improvement was still observed for Juvéderm Ultra Plus (Fig. 4), and 88 percent of the severe nasolabial folds treated with Juvéderm Ultra Plus in the original study and at repeated treatment still had a clinically significant correction at 1 year after repeated treatment despite the significantly lower injection volume at repeated treatment.

Continued in Next Blog

JUVEDERM THE MIRACLE FACIAL WRINKLE FILLER - Hyaluronic Acid What?

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

DR MICHELE KOO, MD, FACS, BOARD CERTIFIED PLASTIC SURGEON, ST LOUIS, MISSOURI wants you to know that JUVEDERM and BOTOX are an extremely safe, economical way with no down time to soften your face in a significant way by smoothing and filling in the facial wrinkles that make you look tired and older than you are. Why always be asked if you are mad or tired? Take charge of your life and in 30 minutes in Dr Koo’s office rejuvenate your face with JUVEDERM AND BOTOX to lift up the frowns around your mouth, ever so subtlely plump your lips, and fill in those deep nasolabial folds.

Dr Koo wants you to know that JUVEDERM AND BOTOX are extremely safe and has been FDA approved for facial use to fill creases and smooth the dynamic lines of your face around the eyes and forehead.

The following is a continuation of an article by Dr Mary Lupo, published in the Plastic & Reconstructive Journal, January 2008. Dr Koo hopes that this is helpful information to let you understand the fillers that are available and to realize that the fillers are very safe.

One small open-label study in France treated 49 subjects with Juvéderm 30 in either one or two of four possible injection sites, the nasolabial folds (59 percent), upper lip (37 percent), glabella (16 percent), and bitterness folds (10 percent).4 Most subjects had a touch-up at 1 to 2 months after treatment, with a mean of 0.6 ml administered at each session. Wrinkle severity improvement of approximately 50 percent on a five-point scale remained stable up to 11 months after initial treatment.
Interestingly, in our study, the nasolabial folds initially treated with Zyplast returned almost to baseline after the initial 24-week period, but subsequent treatment with Juvéderm Ultra Plus resulted in the same duration of clinically significant improvement as seen in the nasolabial folds originally treated with Juvéderm Ultra Plus.

The most significant finding from our studies is the extended duration of correction for Juvéderm Ultra Plus, in particular, for severe folds. Other resorbable fillers (collagens and hyaluronic acids) have not been proven to last beyond 6 months. The most comparable product, Perlane, was developed to treat deeper folds in that it is indicated for injection into the deep dermis and has larger hyaluronic acid gel particles than its sister product Restylane, both from Medicis Aesthetics (Scottsdale, Ariz.).5 Juvéderm has a different manufacturing process that creates a homogenous gel without a granular consistency.

In a split-face study comparing Perlane to Zyplast in 68 subjects with a range of different wrinkle severities from mild to extreme, 26 percent were classified as having severe nasolabial folds before treatment, although results were not stratified by baseline nasolabial fold severity.6 At 6 months after optimal correction, 59 percent of all Perlane-treated folds maintained correction, as opposed to the 96 percent noted in the Juvéderm Ultra Plus severe folds study. Moreover, at 9 months, only 49 percent of the Perlane folds were rated as superior to Zyplast, with 37 percent showing equivalency between Perlane and Zyplast and 14 percent showing Zyplast to be superior to Perlane.

Given that Juvéderm Ultra Plus outlasts the temporary dermal fillers, perhaps it should be compared with the semipermanent fillers Radiesse (BioForm Medical, San Mateo, Calif.) and Sculptra (Dermik Aesthetics, Berwyn, Pa.). Radiesse consists of synthetic calcium hydroxylapatite microspheres suspended in a gel of glycerin, water, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose.7 Following injection, the gel dissipates, collagen production is stimulated for volumizing, and phagocytosis gradually breaks down and eliminates the microspheres.

In December of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Radiesse for correction of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds such as nasolabial folds and for facial lipoatrophy in people with human immunodeficiency virus,8 although the product had earlier been approved for other uses such as vocal cord augmentation and was used off-label, particularly for deep creases such as severe nasolabial folds.9 The pivotal trial involved 117 subjects treated with Radiesse in one nasolabial fold and human collagen in the other nasolabial fold with up to two touch-ups allowed at 2-week intervals to attain optimal correction (mean Radiesse injection volume, 1.2 ml).8 Rated on a six-point scale using blinded photographic assessments, the mean improvement in wrinkle severity at 6 months was 1.3 (compared with 1.7 on a five-point scale for Juvéderm Ultra Plus at the same time point), and no long-term data were provided.

In a small open-label study, patient self-reports showed duration of nasolabial fold correction of 10 to 12 months for four of 18 subjects and greater than 12 months for 14 of 18 subjects.10 Another open-label study was based on surveys sent to 609 subjects who had received Radiesse injections to the nasolabial folds or other facial areas.11 Responses to the 6-month survey were received from 155 subjects, and responses to an additional survey sent between 12 and 24 months after initial treatment were received from 112 subjects. Average subject satisfaction at 6 months was 3.9 on a five-point scale (with 5 being most satisfied). In the 12- to 24-month survey, 69 percent reported satisfaction, although the most common comment was thought it would last longer. Importantly, 84 percent of subjects (n = 512) required repeated treatments to achieve or maintain optimal correction. Of those, 63 percent had touch-ups at 4 to 6 weeks and 53 percent at 5 to 9 months.

Sculptra is an injectable poly-L-lactic acid indicated for correction of lipoatrophy though, like Radiesse, it is used off-label for cosmetic wrinkle correction and volumizing. The product must be reconstituted with water at least 2 hours before injection, and the correction fades within 1 week as the fluid is absorbed. The mechanism of action is the stimulation of collagen production, which requires several injections at intervals of at least 2 weeks to generate cosmetic improvement.12 Clinical studies on Sculptra have focused on human immunodeficiency virus-positive subjects with facial lipoatrophy13; thus, the longevity of correction in facial wrinkles is unknown.

One salient point about the semipermanent fillers is that they are generally injected through larger needles than used with collagen or hyaluronic acid-based fillers to prevent the particles in the product from clogging the needle. A 25-gauge needle is preferred for Sculptra,14 and a 25- to 27-gauge needle is recommended for Radiesse,15 with a larger needle having greater propensity to generate tissue trauma and pain on injection. In contrast, Juvéderm Ultra Plus is injected through a smaller 27-gauge needle.2 Moreover, Radiesse and Sculptra are intended for placement only in the deep dermis or dermal-subcutaneous junction and do not have the flexibility to treat finer wrinkles and folds, as can Juvéderm Ultra Plus.

CONCLUSIONS
Juvéderm Ultra Plus represents an excellent combination of attributes for a dermal filler. Permanent products bear some long-term risk if the initial correction is excessive or misapplied and can result in an unnatural appearance as aging tissues shrink and make the filler visible.16 Semipermanent fillers, in contrast, are prone to the problems endemic to the particulate nature of these products, may require larger needle sizes, and have limited utility in superficial defects or wrinkles. Juvéderm Ultra Plus may have found the sweet spot of an ideal duration for wrinkle correction with a good safety profile.

BOTOX - But I don’t want my face frozen…

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

DR MICHELE KOO, MD, FACS, BOARD CERTIFIED PLASTIC SURGEON, ST LOUIS, MISSOURI wants you to have to latest information of the research on BOTOX AND JUVEDERM. This is the continuation of the article by Dr Mary Lupo published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, January 2008.

Dr Koo stays ahead of the learning curve and constantly re-evaluates the products available to you as well as her own results to give you the best and newest most optimal treatments. Furthermore, she performs all of the treatments herself and follows you very closely so as to tailor all future treatments for you so they will be as perfect as possible for your skin and face. Dr Koo believes in custom tailoring your treatment. She is respecful of your budget and time and will discuss all the options available to you for smoothing the wrinkles on your face and softening the years away with filler.

This continues the article on Juvederm by Dr Mary Lupo as published in Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery January 2008.

Subjects in the subset with severe nasolabial folds (Wrinkle Assessment Scale grade 3) were included if they had fully visible bilateral nasolabial folds that were severe at the deepest part (as assessed by the evaluating investigator) and were approximately symmetrical and of equal severity on each facial side. Exclusion criteria included hypersensitivity to bovine collagen or hyaluronic acid; history of atopy, anaphylaxis, multiple severe allergies, or allergy to meat or lidocaine; current immune therapy or history of autoimmune disease; tendency to develop hypertrophic scarring; use of oral retinoids or, in the nasolabial fold area, over-the-counter or prescription antiwrinkle treatments, microdermabrasion, or chemical peels in the 4 weeks before randomization; and any cosmetic procedure or tissue augmentation at the nasolabial folds in the 6 months before study entry.

Subjects were eligible to enroll in the repeated treatment study if they completed the initial 24-week period, indicated at the final visit that the Juvéderm-treated side was preferred, and the repeated treatment was performed between 24 and 36 weeks (±14 days) after initial optimal correction was achieved in the pivotal study. The main exclusion criteria included facial hair that would interfere with the visual assessments of nasolabial fold severity and having undergone or having plans to undergo any tissue augmentation with temporary, permanent, or semipermanent dermal fillers; botulinum toxin injection; laser resurfacing; dermabrasion; chemical peel; or face lift in the lower two-thirds of the face less than 30 days before the repeated treatment or at any time thereafter through the end of the extended follow-up period. Eligible subjects underwent their repeated treatment to both nasolabial folds on the same day with the same Juvéderm formulation that was used during the pivotal study treatment.

Statistical analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population for effectiveness data and on the as-treated population for safety data. A value of p < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. The improvements in nasolabial fold severity score were compared with baseline using a signed rank test, and the proportion of nasolabial folds with a clinically significant improvement (one or more point decrease on the five-point scale compared with baseline) was evaluated using a McNemar test. Mean nasolabial fold severity scores were compared against the control by means of generalized estimating equations analyses.

RESULTS
Subjects
The initial study enrolled 439 subjects through 11 investigational sites across the United States. A total of 87 subjects with severe nasolabial folds (both nasolabial folds rated as a 3 on the five-point scale) were randomized to treatment with Juvéderm Ultra Plus in one nasolabial fold and Zyplast in the opposite nasolabial fold. Nearly all [n = 82 (94 percent)] of the subjects completed the 24-week follow-up period and most [n = 70 (81 percent)] of the subjects returned for the complimentary repeated treatment. Because of varying circumstances (e.g., scheduling issues, Hurricane Katrina), a small number of subjects (n = 16) had effectiveness evaluations 1 year or more after their last study treatment (before any repeated treatment). These subjects were statistically similar to the other study subjects in terms of injection volume and nasolabial fold severity at 6 months. Thus, these subjects’ long-term results (i.e., effectiveness at 1 year or more) can be extrapolated to the overall population.

Demographic data revealed that most subjects were female Caucasians with a mean age of 49 years (range, 26 to 74 years). The full range of Fitzpatrick skin types was represented, and 36 percent of subjects had darker skin types (Fitzpatrick types IV through VI).

Five of the original 11 sites participated in the repeated treatment study, enrolling 17 subjects from the Juvéderm Ultra Plus severe fold baseline cohort, all of whom completed the originally planned 24-week follow-up period after repeated treatment. Although the 48-week time point had already passed for a number of these subjects before the protocol amendment extending the study, eight subjects enrolled and received an effectiveness assessment at 48 weeks. Demographic details for those subjects participating in the repeated treatment study were similar to the original study.

Continued on Next Blog

FRAXEL-Repair Laser to Rejuvenate Your Face Without Surgery

Monday, September 15th, 2008

 

 

Dr Michele Koo, MD, FACS

Board Certified

Plastic Surgeon

 

 

Fraxel® Laser Treatment is a unique, non-invasive laser therapy designed to dramatically improve skin texture and pigmentation, allowing you to once more enjoy the fresh and healthy skin of your youth. Its patented “fractional” technology penetrates deep within the skin for maximum rejuvenation while promoting fast healing and stimulating the production of new, firm tissue to smooth out imperfections.

 

Fraxel Laser Treatment is most effective for:

 

·         Improving texture and tone

·         Shrinking pore size

·         Erasing age spots / brown spots

·         Smoothing wrinkles around the eyes

·         Smoothing acne scars

·         Rejuvenating the neck, chest and hands

 

How does Fraxel technology work?

 

Fraxel Laser Treatment utilizes fractional resurfacing technology, where only a small fraction of the skin receives the laser light at any given time. The treatment delivers a series of narrow but deep microscopic laser spots to reach the innermost layers of skin and stimulate collagen growth while leaving the surrounding skin unaffected. The healthy cells in the untouched spots promote rapid healing of the entire area, resulting in faster recovery time and minimal side effects. Think of this “fractional” technique as being like restoring a painting one tiny area at a time, or altering an electronic image pixel by pixel.

 

Fraxel Laser Treatment combines the effectiveness of traditional ablative lasers with the rapid healing of non-fractional non-ablative lasers.

 

What is the Fraxel Laser Treatment like?

 

Fraxel Laser Treatments can be performed right in your doctor’s office. First, your doctor will cleanse the area being treated and apply a topical anesthetic.

 

Your doctor may also apply an FDA-certified blue tint to your skin. This tint darkens the tiny folds and imperfections on the skin’s surface, increasing the contrast against the skin and allowing the laser handpiece to more effectively map the contours of the treatment area. A full-face Fraxel Laser Treatment typically takes 20-25 minutes.

 

What can I expect after a Fraxel Laser Treatment?

 

After treatment, the blue tint and anesthetic are washed off. You may be asked to clean the skin thoroughly but gently with a Fraxel foaming cleanser and water, followed by an antioxidant infusion from your doctor as well as a special Deep Hydration Mask to seal in moisture.

 

Your skin may feel as if it has been mildly sunburned for about an hour after a Fraxel Laser Treatment. After that, discomfort should be minimal. Mild swelling should subside within two to three days, and pinkness—an indication that the skin has been deeply treated—usually fades over five to seven days. There is limited, if any, risk of infection or scarring.

 

New epidermal skin develops within 24 hours. This new skin may be bronze-tinged for a few days to two weeks. It will likely flake and exfoliate as old skin sloughs off and new skin takes its place. The new skin is also highly sensitive and requires adequate sun protection for several months after treatment. Fraxel Daily Moisturizer (SPF 30) is ideal for this purpose.

 

Is there any downtime?

 

While individual results vary, Fraxel offers the benefits of speedy healing and little to no downtime. Many patients return to routine activities and can shave or apply make-up soon after treatment.

 

When will I see results? How long do the effects last?

 

Results are immediate and progressive, with optimal improvement usually visible in about two to three months and gradual improvement for up to a year. Each session shows marked improvement in skin quality, resulting in a high level of patient satisfaction.

How many treatments will I need?

 

Treatment plans vary from patient to patient; your doctor will recommend the number of treatments needed to achieve your personal goals. Clinical studies suggest that an effective treatment plan is three to five sessions spaced about two to four weeks apart. Each session targets a certain percentage of the skin’s surface. By the end of the treatment plan, the entire treatment area will have been covered.

 

LIQUID FACELIFT - FILL IN WRINKLES AND CREASES-JUVEDERM

Monday, September 15th, 2008

Let Dr Michele Koo, MD, FACS, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, St Louis, Missouri rejuvenate your face by removing wrinkles and frowns in the office in a matter of minutes. 

Let’s start with some background on dermal fillers. This market has been growing rapidly, and we expect the growth to accelerate with the introduction of a new entry into the hyaluronic acid segment. Baby Boomers are fueling growth as they more actively fight the aging process. What they’re seeing in the mirror is a loss of volume under their facial skin; that’s a visible sign of aging. The role of dermal fillers is to reduce lines, restore volume, and contour facial folds to restore a more youthful appearance.

The generally accepted signs of aging in the face are the thinning of the dermis layer and the atrophy of fat pads underneath. As a result, there is greater visibility of some unattractive features such as bony areas, blood vessels, wrinkles, and furrows. Because of their placement on either side of the mouth, the nasolabial folds become more prominent and deeply grooved. Some people think of the NLFs as parentheses that call extra attention to the area around the nose and mouth. Others think of them as smile lines. They’re not always welcome, and they can be corrected.

 Let’s stop a moment and note that wrinkles can have one of 2 origins. Either they are “dynamic,” meaning they are visibly highlighted when the underlying muscles are in motion. Think of the lines that appear when you smile or frown. Or the wrinkles are classified as “static,” meaning they appear when the face is at rest or not moving. Dermal fillers are used in the treatment of static wrinkles of the face.

 In contemporary practice, the physician and patient have a choice of many different types of filler. One of the primary distinguishing features is whether a filler is temporary or semipermanent. Among both varieties of fillers, there is considerable variability in duration. There is a broad spectrum of choice among fillers, with animal, nonanimal, human, and synthetic all available. The physician and patient must weigh a range of risk-benefit scenarios in making a choice, and value must also play a role. Finally, fillers are quite versatile, with products developed that are suitable for many areas of the face: fine lines, deep rhytides, folds, lips, and contouring of the face.

If the ideal filler were ever developed, it would be long-lasting but not permanent, since the skin is a dynamic organ. It would be easy to use and inject. The filler would be considered cost effective by both physicians and patients. It would give a natural-looking and smooth-feeling result. It would be versatile and effective in a variety of facial areas. It could be administered without prior allergy testing. And the filler would result in wrinkle correction with minimal side effects and a quick recovery from treatment. 

 
So now we have JUVÉDERM injectable gel, a new product from Allergan. It’s an injectable gel dermal filler with a characteristically smooth consistency. Its indication is for the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles. It is a nonanimal-sourced hyaluronic acid, which we’re abbreviating as “HA.” JUVÉDERM injectable gel is actually a family of HAs.
 
There’s room for confusion among dermal fillers, so let’s clarify what JUVÉDERMinjectable gel is not. JUVÉDERM injectable gel is not collagen; it is hyaluronic acid or HA. And that’s a naturally occurring substance. JUVÉDERM injectable gel is not animal-sourced. It’s cultivated from bacteria, and that means it’s pure and free from any potential animal contaminants, whether bovine or human.  
 
So, how does JUVÉDERM injectable gel work? It’s injected below facial wrinkles and folds, filling the area just below the surface of the wrinkle, and lifting it. JUVÉDERM injectable gel is cross-linked, which is the established way to prolong duration in HA. Cross-linking is a chemical step in processing HA that physically binds strands of polymers to each other. More cross-linking means more resistance to enzymatic degradation. Without cross-linking, HA would be absorbed into the body in just a few days.  
  
JUVÉDERM injectable gel is a family of HA products. Two formulations are available at launch: JUVÉDERM Ultra, a versatile formulation that will probably do the lion’s share of the work. And JUVÉDERM Ultra Plus injectable gel, a robust formulation for deeper folds and wrinkles. A key difference in formulation is the higher degree of cross-linking in JUVÉDERM Ultra Plus, which results in 20% higher viscosity. This increased viscosity creates a more robust product well suited for deeper facial folds.
 

So, if JUVÉDERM injectable gel isn’t the first HA dermal filler, what makes JUVÉDERM different? What makes it the first of the next generation of dermal fillers? JUVÉDERM injectable gel is the first smooth-consistency gel HA dermal filler. It has a smooth formulation. A smooth natural look. A smooth feel going into the wrinkle. And leaves a smooth and natural look and feel for the patient. Here we have 2 unretouched photos of new JUVÉDERM injectable gel and a widely available HA dermal filler. You can actually see a difference at 9-times magnification.
 

JUVÉDERM injectable gel is actually made with proprietary HYLACROSS technology. And that results in a high concentration of HA—24 mg per mL— and a high amount of cross-linked HA per mL.

 

In terms of the actual JUVÉDERM injectable gel treatment, Dr Michele Koo, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, St Louis, Missouri performs this anti-aging wrinkle removal liquid facelift as an in-office procedure in a matter of minutes. There can be some discomfort injecting into facial folds, but pain management is fairly routine with either a nerve block, local anesthetic, or application of ice just before injection.  Dr Michele Koo, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, performs all of the filler injections to remove wrinkles and creases herself, you will not be injected by a non medical spa personnel. Dr Koo will give you her expertise and advice as to the best procedure for your face for removing the creases and wrinkles. She always performs all of the procedures herself so that you are ensured the highest medical safety and expertise.
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

REMOVE THE WRINKLES AND TIGHTEN THE SKIN WITHOUT SURGERY

Friday, June 20th, 2008

WELCOME TO 2010….DO YOU HAVE 1 HOUR AND 3 DAYS TO GET RID OF THE WRINKLES AND TIGHTEN THE SKIN OF YOUR FACE, EYES, AND NECK….WITHOUT SURGERY…

Then Dr. Michele Koo, MD, FACS, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, (314) 984-8331, St Louis, Missouri, is the one for you.

Call our office, (314) 984-8331 and be one of the first 50 patients to call for this promotional discount to have your face lasered to remove those ugly brown spots and wrinkles so that you do not have to use cover up when you go out.

Why undergo surgery when Dr Koo can smooth wrinkles on your face, neck, eyes, and even chest within ONE HOUR and go to a party in ONE WEEK!!

FRAXEL RE:PAIR LASER


back to the top