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 Sexy Lips

Posts Tagged ‘Sexy Lips’

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

DERMAL FILLERS - JUVEDERM - RESTYLANE - DR MICHELE KOO PLASTIC SURGEON - ST LOUIS-SPRINGFIELD-COLUMBIA-KANSAS CITY

Monday, January 19th, 2009

BEFORE JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

BEFORE JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

AFTER JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

AFTER JUVEDERM ULTRA PLUS INJECTION

Introduction

Do you hate the creases and lines in your face? What about your thin lips and furrows? Do you feel that you have deep nasolabial folds?

Do you want to get rid of them in 30 minutes and return to work without any one knowing what you had done?

DR MICHELE KOO, MD, FACS, BOARD CERTIFIED PLASTIC SURGEON, ST LOUIS, MISSOURI can help you regain a fuller, less wrinkled face giving you back the youthful volume of your face without the down time.

For individuals seeking facial rejuvenation, injectable dermal fillers offer a viable nonsurgical option. At the 2008 annual meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, various applications for dermal fillers were discussed. These included a hyaluronic acid (HA) gel filler, calcium hydroxylapatite, poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), and collagen-based products.

Greater understanding of age-related facial changes has resulted in the growing use of soft-tissue facial dermal fillers. Recently, the focus has shifted towards a three-dimensional approach, emphasizing restoration of lost facial volume through the use of a variety of injectable dermal fillers that ideally afford patients a natural, relaxed, more youthful appearance.

Dermal fillers are appropriate for the correction of both dynamic and static fine, moderate, and deep dermal lines. It is extremely important to note, however, that each filler is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a specific and limited anatomical area and a specific use. Also, the use of fillers for the correction of lines in other areas, as well as restoration of facial volume lost in the aging process, although effective, is off-label. In fact, such fillers are used off-label the majority of the time.

Types of Dermal Fillers

Hyaluronic Acid Fillers

As a class, HA dermal fillers have quickly become an extremely popular option in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, second only to botulinum toxin injections. HA is a naturally occurring polysaccharide found in connective tissue and synovial fluid. The various hyaluronan products currently available have differing properties that influence their duration of effect and adverse-effect profiles.  Specifically, they may differ in the degree of gel hardness or flow properties, particle size within the gel, concentration of HA particles and gel per milliliter, and ratio of soluble to insoluble HA. Different injection techniques, including “cross-hatching,” “fanning,” “serial puncture,” and “linear threading,” are recommended for specific areas of the face and for specific products. It is important that clinicians know which techniques and needle sizes are most appropriate for the selected product and facial area to be injected.

Drs. Pinsky, Goldman, and Boyd discussed the final efficacy, safety, and patient-satisfaction results of a new-generation HA gel filler. In an open-label trial, 9639 subjects were treated with a new smooth, cohesive, 24-mg/mL bacterially derived HA to correct moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds. Evaluation at 9 months post treatment found the new HA gel to be safe and effective, with high patient satisfaction and preference.

With a variety of products available, it is of paramount importance for clinicians to choose the correct product to achieve the desired effect in the specific facial area. Less viscous products are appropriate for the upper dermis, whereas larger-particle products may be preferred for deeper grooves or folds. Some products contain local anesthesia, but patients still may benefit from separate anesthesia (ice, topical anesthetic, field block or peripheral nerve block) prior to the injections. After injections, it is often recommended that the clinician gently massage the treated area to smooth and mold the material and that ice packs be applied by the patient at home. Finally, unlike other dermal filler materials, asymmetries associated with the use of HAs can be corrected with the use of hyaluronidase.

As with all dermal filler products, touch-ups may be necessary after the initial treatment session. A presentation by Cukurluoglu and colleagues highlighted the importance of informing patients of the possible need for touch-ups, particularly in the nasolabial sulcus, malar, and lip areas.

Calcium Hydroxylapatite

Calcium hydroxylapatite provides a filler effect of generally longer duration than the HA products, with its cosmetic effect persisting between 6 and 12 months. It is typically injected subcutaneously into the nasolabial fold or areas requiring deep soft-tissue applications, but is not appropriate for use in and around the lips owing to possible nodularity. Calcium hydroxylapatite is currently indicated for use in oral/maxillofacial defects, vocal cord insufficiency, and radiographic tissue marking, as well as cosmetically for the correction of folds and wrinkles such as nasolabial folds. It is awaiting approval for the correction of HIV-related facial lipoatrophy. Autogenous collagen forms around the injected calcium hydroxylapatite to hold it in position and maintain the result.

Fakhre and coworkers reported results of a meta-analysis and patient-centric outcomes study examining patient satisfaction with calcium hydroxylapatite for cosmetic nasolabial fold correction. The meta-analysis standardized patient-satisfaction results to a 5-point scale (with 5 representing the greatest level of satisfaction) derived from 5 studies involving a total of 324 patients. Results from the 28 surveys that were returned indicated that patients perceived their results to be in the good-to-very-good range at 1 week (mean, 3.4), 1 month (3.7), and 6 months (3.1), but considered their results fair (2.3) at 1 year. The investigators concluded that calcium hydroxylapatite affords a high level of patient satisfaction in the short term, but that the level of satisfaction does not persist over 1 year post treatment even though the hydroxylapatite itself does.

Poly-L-Lactic Acid

PLLA is currently approved by the FDA for the restoration and/or correction of the signs of facial lipoatrophy in patients with HIV. In addition, it is used in Europe and off-label in the United States for long-term contour (or large-volume) restoration in healthy patients.  PLLA is injected subcutaneously at 4- to 6-week intervals for a total of 2-5 treatment sessions; reports suggest that the results persist for up to 40 months. After a brief injection reaction causing volumizing effects, results do not become apparent for up to 2 months after the last treatment. PLLA is most appropriate for large-volume restoration in the cheeks and has also been used for cosmetic enhancement in the chin, temples, and infraorbital region. The most common adverse events associated with PLLA injections include nonvisible, palpable subcutaneous nodules and granulomas.

In a study (N = 233) presented by Fredric Brandt, MD, that compared the efficacy of injectable PLLA vs a commercially available human collagen implant in the treatment of nasolabial fold wrinkles, there was overall improvement in over 88% for subjects treated with injectable PLLA. For patients who received human collagen implant, there was an overall improvement in 95.7% of patients (P < .001).The former group had significantly fewer postinjection product-related or injection-related adverse events reported among patients receiving PLLA vs collagen (P < .05 and P = .005, respectively).

Collagen-Based Products

Collagen-based products were among the original formulations used for soft-tissue augmentation. The need for hypersensitivity testing associated with bovine collagen led to the development and introduction of human-based collagens, which do not require allergy testing. Collagen injections are safe, but the effects are very temporary, persisting for only 3 months. Consequently, patients must undergo additional collagen injection treatments every few months to maintain the desired look.

Gordley and colleagues reported on a long-term assessment that compared 3 popular collagen-based products in the in vivo murine model: 2 materials involve a cadaveric dermal matrix and the third involves a porcine dermal matrix. All 3 products demonstrated similar encapsulation, peripheral infiltration, and surrounding inflammation upon histologic assessment. However, there was substantial variation between the 3 products on macroscopic evaluation, which likely caused the observed significant long-term variations in graft consistency and structure.

Combination Treatment

Aging influences many aspects of the underlying facial structure and external facial appearance, manifesting as wrinkles or furrows, changes in skin texture and color, and sagging. It is therefore understandable that a combination of therapies might be necessary to optimize the results of cosmetic rejuvenation. Combination approaches (all of which are off-label uses) can include layering dermal fillers at different depths and/or combining the use of dermal fillers to provide volume with neurotoxins, such as botulinum toxin A, to decrease muscle movement. Areas especially amenable to combination therapy include resting glabellar folds, horizontal forehead lines, nasojugal folds, and facial contouring of the zygomatic or perioral regions. Each product targets a specific area and concern, and combining them appropriately can optimize results by affecting both the dynamic and static components. In fact, it is now common for multiple areas to be treated in a single session.

Facial Areas Where Dermal Fillers Are Used

The face is typically divided into thirds when formulating a treatment plan: upper, middle, and lower. After this initial step, it is important that clinicians evaluate the entirety of the face, recognizing how rejuvenating one area may affect the appearance of other areas.[1] Clinicians must consider the individual’s needs, skin color, skin type, and facial shape, including extent of intrinsic and extrinsic facial aging.

Facial areas most amenable to correction with dermal fillers, besides the cheeks, are the nasolabial folds, periorbital area, prejowl depression, and perioral area. Monotherapy with botulinum toxin has historically been the treatment of choice for the upper face, but the addition of HA to botulinum toxin (either in the same treatment session or a subsequent treatment session) affords greater aesthetic improvements and nearly doubles the median duration of response. However, HA injections to the upper face should be performed by experienced clinicians to avoid the rare yet serious complication of necrosis.

Many clinicians use multiple dermal filler products depending on the need of the patient. Correction to the midface region is dependent upon the degree of facial volume loss. Botulinum toxin is often a secondary treatment to dermal fillers in this region, in contrast to the upper face. For correction of the nasolabial folds, clinicians recommend using more viscous filler products via fanning or linear threading techniques for flattening medial to the crease; less viscous products are typically used for the more superficial fine crease itself through serial puncture or linear threading. Because marionette lines and prejowl depressions are more superficial lines, they are typically addressed by mid-to-deep dermis injections using linear threading or serial puncture. Prejowl depressions may require deep subcutaneous injections. Fillers are often added to neurotoxins in and around the periorbital area, where deeper injections are recommended in order to avoid lumpiness.  Because the goal for correcting the lips or perioral rhytides is typically to provide fuller, more voluptuous lips, serial puncture and threading techniques are recommended.

Optimizing Treatment and Safety Considerations

Clinicians must be familiar with (1) which injection techniques and placements are used for each product; (2) the recommended follow-up treatments; and (3) which facial regions are indicated for each specific filler. Patient demographics have also expanded to include substantially more ethnic minorities and males. Differences in musculature between males and females can influence dosing needs and injection technique/placement. Skin color can affect underlying structure and architectural differences, as well as responses to ultraviolet damage. Clinicians must consider all of these factors — intrinsic and extrinsic aging, gender, ethnicity/skin color — before developing an individualized plan for facial rejuvenation. Finally, early complications associated with dermal fillers are typically transient and self-limited, including bruising, edema, and swelling around the injection sites. Although rare, there is the possibility of hypersensitivity reactions, asymmetries, and lumpiness, with longer follow-up of longer-lasting fillers sometimes revealing troublesome and deforming granuloma formation.

Conclusions

Injectable dermal fillers have become an important component of the aesthetic clinician’s armamentarium. The wide variety of dermal filler products allows clinicians to optimize desired results by individualizing patient treatment plans and using combination therapies when appropriate. Having a choice of products necessitates knowledge and comfort with the numerous options, particularly when products are used off-label. Appropriate patient selection, proper injection technique, and selection of the most appropriate product for the desired result in the targeted facial area(s) are key factors underlying patient satisfaction and product efficacy and safety.


back to the top