Premium
Pre‐/postprocedure measures for minimally invasive, nonenergy aesthetic treatments: A survey
Author(s) -
Gold Michael H.,
Andriessen Anneke,
Goldberg David J.,
Grover Komel V.,
Hu Shasa,
Lorenc Z. Paul,
Mandy Stephen H.,
Vega Janelle H.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of cosmetic dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.626
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1473-2165
pISSN - 1473-2130
DOI - 10.1111/jocd.13460
Subject(s) - medicine , demographics , facial rejuvenation , adverse effect , medline , cosmetic techniques , dentistry , physical therapy , family medicine , surgery , demography , sociology , political science , law
Background Non‐energy based devices used in aesthetic medicine include treatments such as microdermabrasion, microneedling, threads, and chemical peels. Practitioners may use these devices to address signs of facial photo‐ and chronological aging (fine lines, wrinkles, pigmentary, and skin textural changes). Currently, consensus papers or guidelines are lacking in peri‐procedural measures or their potential role in the prevention or treatment of adverse events in non‐energy based aesthetic procedures. Aims To explore current practices using non‐energy devices, a survey was developed to identify trends in peri‐procedure treatment measures. Patients/Methods The survey was sent electronically to 2000 dermatologists and 388 plastic surgeons. Randomly selected sites included those practicing medical aesthetics using non‐energy devices for facial rejuvenation. The survey gathered information related to practitioner demographics, types of devices used, and peri‐procedural measures for non‐energy device‐based treatments. Results The survey was active from February to May 2019. Nine hundred and twenty clinicians opened the survey, and 109 surveys were completed, providing a total response rate of 11.8%. The results revealed inconsistencies with regards to skin preparation strategies and post‐procedure care. While the majority of clinicians indicated a need for topical treatments to reduce inflammation, prevent scarring, and shorten time to healing, a standard of care was not observed. Conclusions The results of this survey confirm a lack of standardized measures for peri‐procedural care when using non‐energy based devices for aesthetic medicine treatments. These findings emphasize the need for evidence‐based recommendations for optimizing patient outcomes, reducing and managing adverse events, and shortening time to healing.