dermal fillers Archives | The Aesthetic Clinique

Does Radiofrequency, RF Microneedling, or Lasers Affect Hyaluronic Acid Fillers?

While there are number of studies suggesting that lasers and RF do not affect fillers, a recent article by Dr. Weiss opened up the debate again. In his paper he stated that biopsies showed evidence of heating around the filler. It did not evaluated the changes in the filler volume over time. He concluded that the filler was at risk to be affected by the heat. Dr. Davin Lim’s recently published study contradicts Dr. Weiss, and showed with RFM, there was no affect on fillers (biopsy proved) at multiple different energy levels.

The heat from RF Microneedling reaches approximately 65-75 C for 100 msec to up to 3-4 seconds depending on the device and parameters used. This is the “hottest” version of RF delivery used in aesthetics. This compares to the sterilization process of the fillers at the (Galderma) manufacturing plant of 110-120 C for 15-20 minutes.

Lasers can heat the tissue to a higher level, up to 100 C, but again, it is for milliseconds at best.

Conclusion: There should be no concern regarding placement of HA fillers with RF Microneedling or lasers, at any level of the dermis or subcutanous planes on the same day. Furthermore, there will be no effect on previously placed HA filler. As a side note, PMMA has to be heated to 160 C to cause changes to it’s structure. While the exact temperature is unknown for calcium hydroxyapatite, it is significantly higher than HA, so it too is safe from RF and lasers.

What’s More Accurate – Cannulas vs Needles For Dermal Fillers?

There is an ongoing debate among injectors as to what method of injecting fillers is more accurate. The needle pundits state that the needle can inject in any tissue, at any depths. While this is true, is the filler actually placed where they think it is? Cannulas aficionados argument is that cannulas will stay in the plane which they are placed, and are therefore more accurate.

In a paper titled “Precision in Dermal Filling: A Comparison Between Needle and Cannula when Using Soft Tissue Fillers.” by Pavicic, Frank, Cotofan, et all, the debate was studied. There were 10 cadavers studied for supraperiosteal injections. The filler injected was radiopaque. Needles were placed in position using a perpendicular transcutaneous approach. The cannulas were placed in a similar position in the supraperiosteal plane. Using fluoroscopy, the injected material was analyzed in the horizontal and vertical planes.

The results show that in over 60% of the needle injections, the material changed planes (became more superficial) and this was not found in the cannulas group.

The conclusion was that cannula filler placement is more precise because the filler remains in the plane of the intended implantation much more so than needle placement.

Article Link

What is Myomodulation?

The aging process leads to hyperactivity of the muscles of the face. This movement leads to increased wrinkles and loss of the smooth, youthful appearance of the skin. In the upper face, neuromodulators such as Dysport and Botox, do a great job at relaxing this hyperactivity. What’s trending with aesthetic providers is dampening the muscle movement but not complete relaxation, leading to a more natural expression without “freezing” the patient.

Unfortunately, the neuromodulators can’t be administered throughout the entire face. In the lower face, low doses of neuromodulators are safe for the lips, chin, gummy smile, and DAO (AKA RBF) muscles for the most part. Inhibiting the lower face too much leads to changes with expression and smiling. What can be done to control the muscles in this area? Filler!

(Side note: Hyperactivity of the lower face has been described by Dr. Weiner in gum chewers in a previous blog. It leads to accelerated aging in the lower face and should be discouraged by aesthetic providers.)

An interesting study by Dr. Nowell Solish supports this concept. Using a rather large and sophisticated machine, Dr. Solish was able to determine muscle strain in the lower face during facial expressions. He compared patients in their 50’s to ones in their 30’s. As expected, the older patients had more muscle strain than the younger patients. He then injected the older population with Restylane Refyne and Defyne, 3-4cc in the perioral area. These fillers have XPresHAn technology and have flexibility – stretch capabilities. After the injections, the older patients were restudied for muscle strain. The findings: The muscle strain of the 2 groups (older vs younger) were basically the same. The filler was able to reduce the muscle strain about 15 – 20 years!

What’s the explanation? Dr. de Maio has coined the term myomodulation. His theory is that filler placed around hyperactive muscle leads to stretching and relaxation of the muscle. While this is plausible, there is probably a better way to describe this phenomenon.

Dr. Weiner’s theory: Think of an Aston Martin that has a top speed of 230 mph or more. However, in the US, to conform to the laws and regulations, governors are placed on the car to keep its top speed at 180 (This is purely hypothetical and used for illustrative purposes only). Dr. Weiner feels the fillers Refyne/Defyne limit the full range of movement of the hyperactive muscle, akin to a governor on the muscle. Why these fillers work so well at doing this is because they can stretch and recoil (akin to a tether), leading to some, but not excessive muscle movement. Other fillers would work but with a different and less natural mechanism. Think of the non-flexible fillers as acting as a wall, and not as a governor or tether.

With the new XPresHAn fillers, Refyne and Defyne, we now have a new treatment modality for the lower face which is highly effective. Myomodulation is real, exactly what is the underlying mechanism is still debatable.

Why are Blunt Microcannulas the Obvious Choice for Dermal Fillers?

Dermal fillers are becoming increasingly popular worldwide. Contouring of the face, restoring volume loss, enhancing features such as lip plumping can all be obtained with very little downtime. Just 15 years ago, surgery was the only way these enhancements could be performed. There are some minor complications associated with fillers such as pain, bruising, swelling which are fairly common (>70%) and some major risks such as vascular occlusion, blindness, and stroke which are much less common.

The most common method to administer fillers is using the needle which is packaged with the product. While needles are very easy to use, in the author’s opinion, they are more risky and lead to more downtime versus the blunt microcannula technique. Microcannulas were introduced to the United States about 8 years ago from Europe. These were a smaller version of the already widely cannulas which were used for fat transfer. When compared with a needle, cannulas are more flexible, longer, and their tip is more rounded. The following advantages are found with cannulas:

Fewer dermal penetrations – cannulas are introduced through only a small number of pilot holes.
Less discomfort – the dermis contains more pain fibers than the deeper tissues. The injections with cannulas are below the dermis, so discomfort is less.
Less trauma to tissues/less bruising – because of the rounded tip, the cannula is less likely to nick blood vessels leading to less bruising and swelling.
Faster procedure times – With an experienced cannula user, placement of filler is done very quickly and efficiently. (Cheek/tear troughs <5 minutes per side, lips <5 minutes)
Less vascular occlusion risks – While cannulas aren’t 100% safe, the risks of injecting into a blood vessel are less because entering a vessel is more difficult with the rounded tip and flexible shaft. This is true for the larger gauge cannulas such as 22, 23, and 25. Recent studies by Dr. Pavicic and Cotofana have shown the 27g cannulas have the same force needed to enter a vessel as a 27g needle and therefore should not be used.

Galderma recognized the advantages of microcannulas and became the first company to get FDA approval for their use with Restylane Silk in lips in 2017, and for Restylane Lyft for the cheeks in 2018. While less than 10% of providers use cannulas in the US, there is a push by the top injectors to encourage their widespread use.

Dr. Weiner has been using microcannulas since 2012 and is one of the most experienced cannulas injectors in the US. He is one of the leading trainers for Galderma, particularly for their cannula trainings. He is available for private trainings in off label use of fillers – face/body. There are shadowing opportunities as well as week long internships opportunties. For inquires, please email: info@theclinique.net or steve@stevenfweiner.com

Why Dysport is Dr. Weiner’s Favorite Neuromodulator/Neurotoxin

The most popular cosmetic procedure in the world is wrinkle reducing injections with neurotoxins or the friendlier term, neuromodulators. The injections work by reducing the activity of the muscles they are injected to, there by resulting in less movement and less dynamic wrinkles. Static wrinkles, ones that appear at rest, are less affected by these injections, but over serial treatments, improve as well.

The history of neuromodulators dates to the isolation of the botulinum toxin, the cause of botulism, in the 1928. It was later refined and made commercially available for injections in the 1989 and initially FDA approved for strabismus, lazy eye. Soon thereafter, blepharospasm, spasm of the muscles around the eye, treatments were approved. The team of Carruthers and Carruthers observed that during blepharospasm treatments, the wrinkles around the eye, crows feet, were also improved. Studies were later performed on the frown lines, and FDA approval for cosmetic use was achieved in 2002.

There are currently 3 FDA approved neuromodulators of botulinum toxin A for cosmetic use: Botox, Dysport, and Xeomin. They all work similarly by blocking the acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction. Each brand has their own definition of what a unit dose is, so this can be confusing to both the practitioner and the patients. The differences between the 3 is the associated inactive protein, or absence of this protein in the case of Xeomin. Studies have shown that once the drug powder is mixed with water or saline in the provider’s office, the inactive protein disassociates almost immediately. Why then, are there differences in clinical outcomes between the 3 neuromodulators?

There is a recent comparison of the active protein molecule in the 3 products dosing in the glabella. The study looked at the FDA approved doses for frown lines – glabella. A very interesting finding was that there was 0.27ng in Dysport using the 50u dose vs 0.18ng in Botox’s. Xeomin was a distant 3^rd coming in at 0.08ng with their 20u dose. In essence, patients are receiving a stronger dose when using Dysport when compared to Botox or Xeomin.

It’s long been established that Dysport seems to be effective (in 1-2 days) sooner than Botox (3-4 days) but the reason was never clearly elucidated. It’s also well known that higher dosing of any of the neuromodulators will lead to longer durations of action. This higher level of active protein with Dysport can explain the clinical phenomenon of quicker onset and longer duration.

One other topic needing addressing is the myth of higher diffusion with Dysport vs Botox. Diffusion or spread, is a result of dosing, volume, speed of injection and not a function of the neuromodulator. As stated before, when reconstituted, all the products are free of their associated proteins and only consist of free, active protein. We now know that Dysport has more active protein in their approved dosing, so to compensate, lower volumes must be used for reconstitution. The author’s recommended reconstitution for Botox is 2cc and for Dysport is 1.5cc for the glabellar injections. When diffusion or spread is desired, larger volumes can be used.

With the recent comparison study of active protein in the dosing schemes of the 3 commercially available neuromodulators, it is easy to see why Dysport should be the standout choice. Dysport gives more effective treatments because of the higher active protein, leading to quicker onset and longer duration (up to 5 months) than Botox and Xeomin. Pricing is usually less with Dysport, so it becomes a “no brainer” 1st choice for Dr. Weiner’s practice.

The Jawline – Beauty, Differences Between the Sexes, Aging, and Correction (reJAWvenation)

Nefertiti was recognized for her crisp jawline and smooth neck. Her bust is one of the most famous of the ancient Egyptian sculptures. A razor sharp jawline and well defined ascending ramus (or gonial angle) are hallmarks of beauty, both male and female. Jowling, submental fullness, blunting of the gonial angle, and an irregular jawline are all signs of aging.

While there are many commonalities between the sexes of what constitutes an attractive jawline, there are fundamental differences as well.

Males:

Broad/wide rami of mandible leading to a near vertical appearance on frontal projection
Approximately a 110-115 degree gonial angle (more acute than female)
Significant height of the body of the mandible
Wide defined, projected chin

Females:

V-shaped rami of mandible on frontal projection. A more masculine (vertical) ramus is also considered beautiful in some women (Such as Alessandra Ambrosio)
A more obtuse gonial angle of approximately 135 degrees
Shorter height along the body of the mandible
Pointed, less projected chin

There are considerable age related changes of the mandible.

Loss of bone along the body of mandible leading to loss of vertical height. This change is accelerated in an edentulous patient
Blunting of the gonial angle eventually leading to a curvilinear jawline
Narrowing of the male chin and widening of the female chin
Deepening of the gonial notch

The age related mandibular changes lead to loss of support of the soft tissue in the lower face – falling forward and downward. Jowling and submental fat is exaggerated. The upper neck skin shows more laxity as facial skin drops into the neck.

Correction of age related jawline changes with fillers- reJAWvenation

Dr. Weiner has perfected a correction using dermal fillers which he has coined “reJAWvenation”. It is based on restoring the age related loss of bone and leads to support of the lower face soft tissues. Filler is placed along the inferior border of the mandible as well as filling the gonial notch. The gonial angle is recreated. The lower aspect of the jowl is considered the new baseline and filling is made on either side to “camouflage” the jowl. Filler is also placed along the posterior aspect of the ascending ramus. The prejowl sulcus is filled, with emphasis to include the space beneath the inferior mandibular border. The chin must also be corrected to the male/female appropriate projection and shape.

reJAWvenation offers a quick (10-15 minute) correction of the age related changes to the jawline. Improvements in jowls, upper neck, jawline, and chin can be expected. There is minimal or no downtime. Even with facelifts, jawline volume is not typically addressed and needs to be corrected either during the procedure with fat grafting, or in the office, after healing, with fillers.

Cannulas Were Approved by the FDA for Restylane Silk….Finally!

On October 12, 2017, Galderma was notified by the FDA that Restylane Silk was approved to be administered using blunt microcannulas. Galderma deserves a huge “high 5” for stepping out of the box in recognizing the improved patient outcomes and safety benefits of cannulas. No other dermal filler in the US has been approved for use with cannulas, it is a “First for Fillers”. Galderma is researching other areas for cannula use and expect approval in 2018 for another 1 or 2 indications.

What’s the big deal with cannulas?

The traditional method to administer dermal fillers is using a needle. Unfortunately, there are many side effects and risks using needles. These include:

Bruising – sticking a needle into a highly vascular organ, skin, will lead to bruising a majority of the time. This is corroborated by the FDA studies for all the US approved fillers.
Pain – needles require multiple entry points to deposit the filler. Pain fibers are most prevalent in the dermis.
Vascular Occlusion Risk – when a blood vessel is cannulated with a needle and the filler is injected directly into the vessel, occlusion of the vessel occurs. The sequelae of such event can result in skin necrosis, eye injury, or even blindness.

Cannulas have a blunted, rounded tip which is less likely to injure blood vessels than a needle is. When the cannula brushes up against a vessel, it is deflected away, in distinction to a needle which will often pierce the vessel. When a vessel is traumatized, a bruise will occur.

To use cannulas, a small pilot hole using a needle is required. Unfortunately, completely eliminating needles is not possible. However, after that entry is performed, the cannula can be placed through the dermis and into the subcutaneous tissue or deeper fat compartments. The areas below the skin surface are generally less innervated and are more comfortable to place filler.

The most important quality of cannulas is their safety. By design, they are much less likely to result in placement of filler within the lumen of a blood vessel. The rounded tip eludes lumens of blood vessels whereas needles don’t offer that protection. Although vascular occlusion is possible with cannulas, it is much less likely when compared to the risks associated with needles.

Dr. Weiner has been an advocate of injecting dermal fillers with cannulas for the past 6 years, since 2012. He has become one of the most experienced cannula users in the US. He has been chosen by Galderma to use his cannula experience to “Train the Trainers” in the use of cannulas for Restylane Silk in the lips.

Proper Sterile Technique is Critical for Optimal Dermal Filler Results

In surgery, sterile technique is “the law”. Any break in sterility places the patient at risk for a potentially life threatening infection. It is the duty for the surgeon(s), scrub tech, and circulating nurse to self report or call out any suspected or potential contamination risk. Immediate actions are taken to remedy the situation and to limit the risk to patient.

Why should dermal fillers be treated as anything differently? They shouldn’t! Fillers are semipermanent or permanent implants, and they must be administered in aseptic technique. The majority of injectors are not trained as surgeons and therefore don’t fully comprehend what sterile technique entails. Granulomas, one of the more serious complications from fillers, have now been traced to biofilms. Biofilms are latent bacteria that somehow get activated and present as infection or granulomas, months to years after the initial injection. Most often biofilms are deposited in the tissues during the initial injection procedure. Clearing infections or granulomas takes weeks or months to clear and often entails antibiotics, steroids, 5 FU, and hyaluronidase (if a hyaluronic acid was used).

The following guidelines should serve as a reference for physicians and nurses to minimize infectious complications during dermal filler injections.

The patient should clean their face thoroughly with soap and water in the office. All make-up must be removed.
Never inject someone with a current/ongoing infection. Even if the infection is not in the area of the dermal filler, bacteria can seed the filler from distant areas through the bloodstream (bactermia).
If a patient is in the process of getting dental work or even dental cleanings, hold off on injections until after the work has been completed. Bactermia is well documented during dental cleanings. It is recommended to wait at least 2 weeks after fillers to get dental cleanings. The areas of filler placement will initially have increased blood flow (hyperemia) so it is best to wait until this settles down.
Skin should be prepped for injection with chlorhexidine, with Hibiclens being the preferred form by the author. Although isopropyl alcohol (70%) is effective in killing bacteria and fungus, it is only effective for seconds and becomes ineffective as soon as it evaporates. Hibiclens kills germs on contact and will give persistent bactericidal effects for at least 6 hours, and up to 24 hours. It will bond with the skin even after washing to give continued killing effects. Isopropyl alcohol doesn’t give this lasting bactericidal effect, so anytime after the initial cleaning that an unsterile glove touches the skin, that area is now contaminated. (Hibiclens must be kept out of the eyes because it can burn the cornea). Technicare is also a great antiseptic but the author doesn’t have experience with it. Too many patients are allergic to Betadine for it to be used routinely.
Do not use tap water when applying Hibiclens or to clean the face after completion of the injections. There are several bacteria, fungi, as well as mycobacterium in water which can seep through the injection ports and cause infection.
If the filler is prepared by mixing lidocaine or saline, this must be done in a sterile fashion. The female/female connector used to connect the 2 syringes together must not be reused. It can only be used for the current patient and cannot be sterilized for use on other patients. The tops of all the solutions used must be wiped with an alcohol wipe. Routine use of blending fillers opens up more avenues for filler contamination and must be done with the strictest of sterile technique. If any of the solution vials becomes unsterile, all future filler patients using that vial will become infected.
Blunt tip cannulas can be used for multiple injection sites ON THE SAME PATIENT and are not intended to be used for multiple patients. When changing the cannulas between syringes, they should be recapped first. It is not sterile technique to lay the cannula on an unsterile tray or even a sterile drape when uncapped. After a syringe of filler is removed from its sterile packaging, the areas touched with the exam gloves become “contaminated”. Therefore, the sterile drape is not a sterile field anymore, once the syringes is placed on it. Best practice is to cap the syringe every time it is laid down.
Blunt cannulas are much longer than needles and must be kept sterile throughout their entire length. The cannula is contaminated if anywhere along its length it touches non sterilized skin, gloves, or hair.
It is never appropriate to touch a needle or cannula with unsterile gloves. The needle/cannula are now contaminated and must be exchanged.
The introducing needle for the pilot hole with cannula use must be recapped as well to maintain sterility.
Unless the gauze used during the procedure is specifically labeled as sterile, it is not, and introduces another route of contamination. Gauze that comes in sealed pull away packs and labeled as sterile is best to use. The author will take unsterile gauze, place in autoclave packs, and place in the autoclave to obtain sterility.
Frequent “re-sterilization” of the areas being treated with Hibiclens soaked gauze is done by the author.
If ice or devices for vibration are used to control discomfort, these should be cleansed with Hibiclens prior to applying to the skin. In addition, the areas where these were applied should be “re-sterilized” prior to injections.
When the procedure is complete, sterile water or saline on sterile gauze should be used to clean the patient. Again, if tap water is used, this can seep through the injection ports and lead to infection. Also, when soaking the gauze, best practice is to pour the water/saline over the sink onto the sterile gauze so as to keep the remaining fluid in the container sterile. By tipping the water/saline onto gauze that is covering the top, there is risk of contamination going back into the container.
Make-up should not be applied to the skin until the morning. At this point, the injection ports have all healed and there is no risk of contamination.
Dental procedures, even cleanings, should be postponed for at least 2 weeks.

Although the details above are fairly lengthy, any break from any step will lead to a possible source of granuloma or infection in the future. Strict sterile technique will lead to better outcomes and happier patients,

Update – A Better Way (Than Sculptra) to Enhance Temples is Using Cannulas and Refyne

A couple years ago, I wrote a blog that stated deep injections along the periostium using Sculptra were the best way to enhance temples suffering from volume loss. I would like to update everyone to a newer technique I have perfected that gives better results.

Although the Sculptra temple injections are safe and long lasting, there were deficiencies:

Multiple treatments were required – 3 or more
Results take weeks or months to occur
Final results still showed volume loss in the temporal fusion line and supraorbital area
Significant volumes of Sculptra were required
Needle injections inherently lead to more bruising than cannulas

The temporal fossae is a very large space and when Sculptra is injected in this area, there is tremendous spread of the product due to its watery consistency. In addition, the deep temporal fascia is a thick and unyielding tissue plane that resists lateral movement from filler placed deeply.

My current preference for volumizing the temples uses large (23g) cannulas and a diluted HA (Refyne) dermal filler. I use large cannulas because they are safer than the smaller cannulas and needles for preventing vascular occlusion. I have found that the larger cannulas navigate the numerous veins in the temples well with minimal discomfort. My entry point is the zygomatic arch, about 1 cm posterior to the brow. The plane of injection is between the superficial temporal fascia and the deep temporal fascia. This is the exact area where the temporal fat pad is situated and where fat loss occurs. Surrounding areas such as the superior orbital rim, supraorbital area, forehead, and hairline can all be injected from the temporal approach. By diluting the Restylane Refyne with 1cc of saline and 1cc of lidocaine 1%, the thinner product is able to distribute very evenly throughout the plane of injection. Refyne’s high tissue integration and low swelling properties makes this the optimal filler for this area. I have found that a total of 1-2 syringes of the filler is needed to achieve correction in most patients. Massaging at the time of injection and periodically afterwards by the patient will give the smoothest results. A follow up in 3 weeks is typically made to make final touch ups if needed.

Techniques must constantly be re-evaluated and refined to achieve the optimal and safest results for our patients.

The Next Big Thing….Nanofat

Aesthetic physicians are constantly striving to find the best procedure/device to turn back time. This time, it is actually a procedure which has been used for decades, but with some modifications. Fat grafting is a procedure that harvests fat from one part of the body and then injects the fat into another area. It has been used to volumize the aging face, hands, and even breasts. Benefits of fat grafting in repairing slowing healing wounds and radiated tissue have shown there are additional qualities to this procedure other than just volume. It turns out that fat contains stem cells and growth factors, more than any other tissue in the body, even more than bone marrow. The component of the fat that contains the stem cells and growth factors is called the “stromal vascular fraction”, also know as SVF.

When digging down into the research, an interesting finding has been discovered. It turns out that most of the fat cells injected don’t actually survive. What actually happens is that the stems cells (Adipose Derived Stem Cells – ADSC) injected along with the fat cells (SVF) leads to new fat cell production.

So here’s the new modification of the procedure. There is new a way to separate the SVF from the fat, without affecting the viability of the stem cells. This process creates the so called Nanofat, a highly concentrated solution of stem cells and growth factors.

It is a process of using filters and screens which takes less than 15 minutes to perform. It turns out that fat cells make up about 80% of the volume of the fat extracted during the harvest. The filtration system leads to destruction of the fat cells (which don’t live anyways) and leads to a much thinner solution which can be injected using smaller cannulas or needles than typical fat grafting procedures.

It turns out that Nanofat actually contains little to no viable fat but is the popular term for the SVF derived from fat. To even further “energize” the Nanofat injections, PRP or PRF is mixed with the solution. This process gives additional growth factors which benefit in the fat production and overall repair and rejuvenation of the areas treated.

Nanofat injections are often combined with fat grafting which is modified from the classical method. It has been found that the inconsistent “take” and lumpiness of fat grafting is related to large size and nonuniformity of the fat harvested. To overcome these hurdles, the harvesting process is now done with smaller cannulas and the fat is pushed thru filters to make uniformly smaller sized fat globules.

Nanofat is useful to treat:

Crepey skin around the eyes
Superficial lines and wrinkles
Smoker’s lip lines
Thin, atrophied skin
Severely sun damaged skin (in combination with other procedures)

The use of Nanofat, with or without fat grafting, requires a minor liposuction procedure to harvest the cells. This is done completely under local anesthesia. Only syringes are used as suction and the cannulas used are much smaller than typical liposuction. There will be some downtime of swelling, bruising, and redness, that typically lasts a few days or up to a week (longer in a minority of patients). Full results require about 9 months to fully appreciate – the time required for new fat and skin cells to be generated.

We now have a completely natural way to rejuvenate and reverse the affects of aging, using stem cells derived from fat cells – Nanofat. The process of isolation of the stem cells and growth factors from fat has become an extremely viable option with a 90 minute procedure.