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

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.

The advantage of something like BOTOX and Juvederm is that it only takes 20-30 minutes in your plastic surgeon’s office. The disadvantage of course is the cost and you must maintain the BOTOX every 3-5 months and the filler every 12-18 months. However, if you start BOTOX before the lines and creases become deep and relatively permanent, your skin will stay quite a bit more smooth and youthful appearing as you age.

The animation muscles of your face have worked all of your life, your skin is much more resilient during the first 25 years and therefore you see no lines and creases. As you incur sun damage along with age, your skin begins to show the results of that muscle action and sun exposure as well as exposure to toxins such as nicotine from cigarettes if you are a smoker.

It is better to start with the BOTOX in the mid to late 20’s to prevent the deep creases from ever beginning. There really is no age limit on the other end except that the BOTOX and fillers are not as effective if there are so many creases and they are so deep. Same thing for the fillers in that you will need so much more filler if your wrinkles are extremely deep and you in fact may need to have the skin redraped with surgery in addition to the filler to regain softness and volume to your face.

The following exerpt continues the information from the study by Dr Mary Lupo published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, January 2008. Dr Michele Koo hopes that this is helpful and that you understand that outcomes and effects are continually being studied and monitored by plastic surgeons throughout the country to ensure the safety of the products we use for WRINKLE REDUCTION.

Dr Koo is extremely respectful of your time and money and will only use what she feels is the best product for you and will not use any more than you need to address your concerns. She truly believes that often, “less is more” and that subtlety is the key to looking better without looking done.  Why should anyone know what your secret is. Dr Koo will be your best kept secret on the War Against Wrinkles.

With the baby boomer generation firmly ensconced in middle age, there is increasing interest in maintaining a youthful appearance to match this energetic generation. After the 2002 U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of botulinum toxin type A (Botox Cosmetic; Allergan, Inc., Santa Barbara, Calif.) for treatment of glabellar lines, nonsurgical correction of wrinkles became a possibility. With Botox management of dynamic wrinkles, a plethora of new dermal fillers are vying to address static wrinkles, providing an overall rejuvenation of the aging face.

Among these promising new treatments is the family of Juvéderm hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (Allergan), approved in the United States in 2006 for treatment of facial wrinkles and folds. Juvéderm Ultra Plus Injectable Gel has a high degree of cross-linking, which makes it particularly well suited for volumizing and correcting deeper folds and wrinkles.2 Patients with deep facial wrinkles and folds are generally at a disadvantage when it comes to cosmetic correction, as they require a large volume of dermal filler and their correction may not be sustained; thus, a filler that is specifically designed to treat severe wrinkles is an important advancement.

Results from the randomized, controlled study of three Juvéderm formulations compared with bovine collagen have been published previously.3 We sought to further characterize the clinical characteristics of Juvéderm Ultra Plus treatment (and to compare this to bovine collagen treatment) among subjects who had severe nasolabial folds before treatment.

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, within-subject, controlled study was conducted as part of a submission for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study compared three different formulations of Juvéderm against bovine collagen (Zyplast; Allergan). One-third of subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with Juvéderm Ultra Plus, containing 24 mg/ml of cross-linked hyaluronic acid, in one nasolabial fold and Zyplast in the other. Results presented here are limited to those subjects who received Juvéderm Ultra Plus and had severe folds at baseline.

Blog to be Continued in What age is good to start BOTOX…

BEFORE JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

AFTER JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

Introduction

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.

After Injection

 

Before Injection

    

BEFORE JUVEDERM INJECTION

AFTER JUVEDERM INJECTION BY DR MICHELE KOO

Signs of Aging in the Face

• Thinning of skin dermis and loss of volume of

     the face

• Greater visibility of bony  landmarks, blood

     vessels, and furrows

• Prominence of the nasolabial folds () around

    the mouth and nose

• Prominence of marionette lines () around

     corners of the mouth and chin also known as

     smiles lines

Dynamic vs Static Wrinkles

•  Dynamic wrinkles in the facial skin appear or

     are more noticeable when the underlying

     muscles are in motion, for example when you

     smile or frown

•  Static wrinkles appear when the face is at

      rest or not moving

Fillers—Background 

 Hyaluronic Acid (HA)

•   ^{Now approved as a dermal (skin) filler}
•   ^{Creates volulme in any tissue}
•   ^{Naturally occurring in the body}
•   ^{Attracts water and thus continues to         “plump” after the injection for a beautiful natural fill}

What Is JUVÉDERM^™? 

• ^{Juvederm injectable is a smooth gel dermal filler}

• ^{For the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles}

• ^{Nonanimal-sourced hyaluronic acid (HA)}

 JUVÉDERM^™

•   ^{Not collagen}

•  
  • ^{Injected into facial folds and wrinkles}
  • ^{Fills the skin area just below the surface}
  • ^{Cross-linking of Hyauronic Acid extends duration of the product and longevity of results}
  • ^{Cross-linking is chemical processing of HA to}
  • ^{More cross-linking means more resistance to enzymatic degradation and}
  •   ^{Two formulations}
  •   ^{JUVÉDERM™ Ultra - optimally formulated for versatility in contouring}
  • ^{JUVÉDERM™ Ultra Plus - robust formulation for volumizing and correcting deeper}
  • ^{JUVÉDERM™ Ultra Plus is a robust formulation with a 20% thicker gel for deeper folds}
  • ^{JUVÉDERM™ injectable gel is the first smooth-consistency gel HA}
  • ^{Smooth formulation}
  • ^{Smooth, natural look}
  • ^{Smooth feel}
  • ^{JUVÉDERM™ injectable gel is made with proprietary HYLACROSS™ technology}
  • ^{Creates a smooth-consistency gel}
  • ^{Combines a high concentration of hyaluronic acid (HA)}
  • ^{With the highest amount of cross-linked HA per mL}
  • ^{Results in a smooth, natural look and feel for patients}
  • ^{Uniquely produced by proprietary HYLACROSS™ technology}
  • ^{Clinically proven to persist up to 12 months or in both formulations}
  • ^{Smooth-consistency gel and not a granular- consistency gel}
  • ^{Overwhelmingly preferred by patients over study control}
•  ^{JUVÉDERM™ injectable gel is a hyaluronic acid (HA)}

 

• ^{Naturally occurring in the body}

 

• ^{Not animal-sourced}

 

• ^{Cultivated from bacteria}

 

• ^{Pure, free from animal contaminants}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Does JUVÉDERM^{™ Work?}

 

 

 

 

 

      ^{bind strands of polymers to each other}

 

      ^{therefore longer lasting in the body}

 

 
 

^{1. Data on file, Allergan, Inc., 2006.}

 

JUVÉDERM^{™ Family of Products}

 

 

        ^{and volumizing wrinkles and folds}

 

      ^{wrinkles and folds}

 

 

 

How Is JUVÉDERM^{™ Different?}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Is JUVÉDERM^{™ Different?}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{1. Data on file, Allergan, Inc., 2006.} 

 

So JUVEDERM^{™ Is…}