Doug Brunk

The calendar year 2022 has been especially good for advancing acne-focused laser and light devices, most recently with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Accure Laser System in late November, for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

This was preceded by the FDA clearance of AviClear, marketed by Cutera, in March, and the commercial launch of TheraClearX, marketed by StrataSkin, in July.

“It’s an exciting time to be working with acne,” Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “We’ll see a lot of people using new devices. I’m looking forward to seeing results in the long term.”

AviClear and the Accure Laser System, marketed by Accure, are both powered by a 1,726-nm laser, but they work differently. AviClear, which was cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, has a maximum fluence of 30 J/cm² in single-pulse mode and a maximum fluence of 20 J/cm² in double-pulse mode. The treatment handpiece has an integrated scanner for delivering treatment spot(s) in an operator-selected pattern. “It’s a little bit lower powered than the Accure and has a maximum pulse energy of 5 joules and a pulse duration of up to 50 milliseconds,” Dr. Sakamoto said. In the treatment of acne, laser and light treatments target the sebaceous gland.

In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 patients with acne who were enrolled at 7 U.S. sites received 304 treatments with AviClear spaced 2-5 weeks apart. Each treatment took about 30 minutes. Treatment success was defined as having at least 50% fewer inflammatory acne lesions 12 weeks after the final treatment visit, compared with baseline. At the week 4 follow-up visit, there were median and mean reductions of 42% and 37%, respectively, in the inflammatory lesion counts from baseline (P < .001). The researchers found that, at the week 4 follow-up visit, 36% of patients had achieved treatment success, which increased to 78% at the 12-week follow-up visit. Treatment was considered safe and tolerable, according to the manufacturer.

The other newcomer device with a 1,726-nm wavelength is the Accure Laser System, which features a smart laser handpiece for real-time thermal monitoring and precise delivery of laser emissions. The device received CE Mark approval in 2020 for the treatment of moderate acne, and on Nov. 22, 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had been cleared by the FDA for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

Dr. Sakamoto and her Wellman colleagues have been working with five dermatologists to conduct clinical trials of the device: Emil Tanghetti, MD, and Mitchel Goldman, MD, in California; Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York; Joel Cohen, MD, in Colorado; and Daniel Friedmann, MD, in Texas. As of Oct. 2, 2022, more than 50 patients with mild to severe acne were enrolled in four studies and an additional 30 were enrolled in a pilot facial acne trial, Dr. Sakamoto said. In the trials, patients are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment.

Among patients enrolled in the facial acne trial, researchers have observed a 100% responder rate for patients with more than five acne lesions at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment after four monthly treatment sessions. The average lesion reduction at week 12 was 82% and the mean visual analog scale score immediately after treatment was 2.09 out of 10. Each patient received more than 12,000 trigger pulls of energy from the device overall with no adverse events reported. At 12 months, they observed a 90% inflammatory lesion count reduction from baseline and a rapid response to treatment: a 73% reduction achieved after the first two treatment sessions. Histologic studies revealed selective sebaceous gland destruction with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other skin structures.

Dr. Sakamoto emphasized that to date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices. “Are all 1,726-nm lasers made equal? That is a question that we have to keep in our mind,” she said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “They are using the same wavelength, but they are different types of lasers.”

For example, the Accure Laser treats to temperature, relies on air cooling, and is targeted to dermatologists and plastic surgeons, while the AviClear treats to fluence, relies on contact cooling, and includes med spas and other nonphysician providers as the target users. “Mathematically, the difference between the two devices is that the Accure can achieve deeper penetration in a single pulse, while the AviClear is a little more superficial,” she said. “Whether that is translated clinically is unknown at this point.”

Dr. Sakamoto also discussed the TheraClearX, which is FDA cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, including comedonal, pustular, and inflammatory acne vulgaris. The device, which is a new version of the Palomar Acleara, uses a vacuum technique with up to 3 psi pressure in conjunction with broadband light with a wavelength spectrum of 500 nm–1,200 nm delivered through a liquid-cooled, handheld delivery system. The predicate device was the Aesthera Isolaz System. The vacuum extracts buildup of sebaceous material. “At the same time, it takes the blood out of the competing chromophore,” she said. “By doing so, it potentially damages the sebaceous glands and reduces the inflammatory lesions.”

Dr. Sakamoto disclosed that she is the founder of and science advisor for Lightwater Bioscience. She is also a science advisor for Accure Acne and has received portions of patent royalties from Massachusetts General Hospital.

The calendar year 2022 has been especially good for advancing acne-focused laser and light devices, most recently with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Accure Laser System in late November, for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

This was preceded by the FDA clearance of AviClear, marketed by Cutera, in March, and the commercial launch of TheraClearX, marketed by StrataSkin, in July.

“It’s an exciting time to be working with acne,” Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “We’ll see a lot of people using new devices. I’m looking forward to seeing results in the long term.”

AviClear and the Accure Laser System, marketed by Accure, are both powered by a 1,726-nm laser, but they work differently. AviClear, which was cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, has a maximum fluence of 30 J/cm² in single-pulse mode and a maximum fluence of 20 J/cm² in double-pulse mode. The treatment handpiece has an integrated scanner for delivering treatment spot(s) in an operator-selected pattern. “It’s a little bit lower powered than the Accure and has a maximum pulse energy of 5 joules and a pulse duration of up to 50 milliseconds,” Dr. Sakamoto said. In the treatment of acne, laser and light treatments target the sebaceous gland.

In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 patients with acne who were enrolled at 7 U.S. sites received 304 treatments with AviClear spaced 2-5 weeks apart. Each treatment took about 30 minutes. Treatment success was defined as having at least 50% fewer inflammatory acne lesions 12 weeks after the final treatment visit, compared with baseline. At the week 4 follow-up visit, there were median and mean reductions of 42% and 37%, respectively, in the inflammatory lesion counts from baseline (P < .001). The researchers found that, at the week 4 follow-up visit, 36% of patients had achieved treatment success, which increased to 78% at the 12-week follow-up visit. Treatment was considered safe and tolerable, according to the manufacturer.

The other newcomer device with a 1,726-nm wavelength is the Accure Laser System, which features a smart laser handpiece for real-time thermal monitoring and precise delivery of laser emissions. The device received CE Mark approval in 2020 for the treatment of moderate acne, and on Nov. 22, 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had been cleared by the FDA for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

Dr. Sakamoto and her Wellman colleagues have been working with five dermatologists to conduct clinical trials of the device: Emil Tanghetti, MD, and Mitchel Goldman, MD, in California; Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York; Joel Cohen, MD, in Colorado; and Daniel Friedmann, MD, in Texas. As of Oct. 2, 2022, more than 50 patients with mild to severe acne were enrolled in four studies and an additional 30 were enrolled in a pilot facial acne trial, Dr. Sakamoto said. In the trials, patients are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment.

Among patients enrolled in the facial acne trial, researchers have observed a 100% responder rate for patients with more than five acne lesions at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment after four monthly treatment sessions. The average lesion reduction at week 12 was 82% and the mean visual analog scale score immediately after treatment was 2.09 out of 10. Each patient received more than 12,000 trigger pulls of energy from the device overall with no adverse events reported. At 12 months, they observed a 90% inflammatory lesion count reduction from baseline and a rapid response to treatment: a 73% reduction achieved after the first two treatment sessions. Histologic studies revealed selective sebaceous gland destruction with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other skin structures.

Dr. Sakamoto emphasized that to date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices. “Are all 1,726-nm lasers made equal? That is a question that we have to keep in our mind,” she said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “They are using the same wavelength, but they are different types of lasers.”

For example, the Accure Laser treats to temperature, relies on air cooling, and is targeted to dermatologists and plastic surgeons, while the AviClear treats to fluence, relies on contact cooling, and includes med spas and other nonphysician providers as the target users. “Mathematically, the difference between the two devices is that the Accure can achieve deeper penetration in a single pulse, while the AviClear is a little more superficial,” she said. “Whether that is translated clinically is unknown at this point.”

Dr. Sakamoto also discussed the TheraClearX, which is FDA cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, including comedonal, pustular, and inflammatory acne vulgaris. The device, which is a new version of the Palomar Acleara, uses a vacuum technique with up to 3 psi pressure in conjunction with broadband light with a wavelength spectrum of 500 nm–1,200 nm delivered through a liquid-cooled, handheld delivery system. The predicate device was the Aesthera Isolaz System. The vacuum extracts buildup of sebaceous material. “At the same time, it takes the blood out of the competing chromophore,” she said. “By doing so, it potentially damages the sebaceous glands and reduces the inflammatory lesions.”

Dr. Sakamoto disclosed that she is the founder of and science advisor for Lightwater Bioscience. She is also a science advisor for Accure Acne and has received portions of patent royalties from Massachusetts General Hospital.

The calendar year 2022 has been especially good for advancing acne-focused laser and light devices, most recently with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Accure Laser System in late November, for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

This was preceded by the FDA clearance of AviClear, marketed by Cutera, in March, and the commercial launch of TheraClearX, marketed by StrataSkin, in July.

“It’s an exciting time to be working with acne,” Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “We’ll see a lot of people using new devices. I’m looking forward to seeing results in the long term.”

AviClear and the Accure Laser System, marketed by Accure, are both powered by a 1,726-nm laser, but they work differently. AviClear, which was cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, has a maximum fluence of 30 J/cm² in single-pulse mode and a maximum fluence of 20 J/cm² in double-pulse mode. The treatment handpiece has an integrated scanner for delivering treatment spot(s) in an operator-selected pattern. “It’s a little bit lower powered than the Accure and has a maximum pulse energy of 5 joules and a pulse duration of up to 50 milliseconds,” Dr. Sakamoto said. In the treatment of acne, laser and light treatments target the sebaceous gland.

In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 patients with acne who were enrolled at 7 U.S. sites received 304 treatments with AviClear spaced 2-5 weeks apart. Each treatment took about 30 minutes. Treatment success was defined as having at least 50% fewer inflammatory acne lesions 12 weeks after the final treatment visit, compared with baseline. At the week 4 follow-up visit, there were median and mean reductions of 42% and 37%, respectively, in the inflammatory lesion counts from baseline (P < .001). The researchers found that, at the week 4 follow-up visit, 36% of patients had achieved treatment success, which increased to 78% at the 12-week follow-up visit. Treatment was considered safe and tolerable, according to the manufacturer.

The other newcomer device with a 1,726-nm wavelength is the Accure Laser System, which features a smart laser handpiece for real-time thermal monitoring and precise delivery of laser emissions. The device received CE Mark approval in 2020 for the treatment of moderate acne, and on Nov. 22, 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had been cleared by the FDA for the treatment of mild to severe inflammatory acne vulgaris.

Dr. Sakamoto and her Wellman colleagues have been working with five dermatologists to conduct clinical trials of the device: Emil Tanghetti, MD, and Mitchel Goldman, MD, in California; Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York; Joel Cohen, MD, in Colorado; and Daniel Friedmann, MD, in Texas. As of Oct. 2, 2022, more than 50 patients with mild to severe acne were enrolled in four studies and an additional 30 were enrolled in a pilot facial acne trial, Dr. Sakamoto said. In the trials, patients are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment.

Among patients enrolled in the facial acne trial, researchers have observed a 100% responder rate for patients with more than five acne lesions at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment after four monthly treatment sessions. The average lesion reduction at week 12 was 82% and the mean visual analog scale score immediately after treatment was 2.09 out of 10. Each patient received more than 12,000 trigger pulls of energy from the device overall with no adverse events reported. At 12 months, they observed a 90% inflammatory lesion count reduction from baseline and a rapid response to treatment: a 73% reduction achieved after the first two treatment sessions. Histologic studies revealed selective sebaceous gland destruction with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other skin structures.

Dr. Sakamoto emphasized that to date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices. “Are all 1,726-nm lasers made equal? That is a question that we have to keep in our mind,” she said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “They are using the same wavelength, but they are different types of lasers.”

For example, the Accure Laser treats to temperature, relies on air cooling, and is targeted to dermatologists and plastic surgeons, while the AviClear treats to fluence, relies on contact cooling, and includes med spas and other nonphysician providers as the target users. “Mathematically, the difference between the two devices is that the Accure can achieve deeper penetration in a single pulse, while the AviClear is a little more superficial,” she said. “Whether that is translated clinically is unknown at this point.”

Dr. Sakamoto also discussed the TheraClearX, which is FDA cleared for the treatment of mild, moderate, and severe acne, including comedonal, pustular, and inflammatory acne vulgaris. The device, which is a new version of the Palomar Acleara, uses a vacuum technique with up to 3 psi pressure in conjunction with broadband light with a wavelength spectrum of 500 nm–1,200 nm delivered through a liquid-cooled, handheld delivery system. The predicate device was the Aesthera Isolaz System. The vacuum extracts buildup of sebaceous material. “At the same time, it takes the blood out of the competing chromophore,” she said. “By doing so, it potentially damages the sebaceous glands and reduces the inflammatory lesions.”

Dr. Sakamoto disclosed that she is the founder of and science advisor for Lightwater Bioscience. She is also a science advisor for Accure Acne and has received portions of patent royalties from Massachusetts General Hospital.

In the opinion of R. Rox Anderson, MD, it’s only a matter of time before true robots make further inroads in dermatology.

“We humans just can’t do everything perfectly,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who directs the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We have limited speed and special accuracy and are not good at repetitive tasks. We can’t see in the UV or infrared, and we’re qualitative, not quantitative. ... We’re good at high-level visual assessment.”

During a presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center, he distinguished between robotics and true robots. A prime example of robotics in medicine is the Da Vinci Surgical System in which a human user “is controlling every movement of this device with capabilities that humans don’t have, such as fine movement and high magnification of imaging,” said Dr. Anderson, who conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. “In the military, we have drone aircraft. The pilot is perhaps thousands of miles away; it’s still run by a human being in every way.”

By contrast, true robots are devices in which a human being programs the rules for action but the action itself is not exactly predictable. Artificial intelligence enables robots to perform certain tasks. “If you look at an Amazon warehouse, there’s barely anyone there; robots are packing and unpacking the shelves,” Dr. Anderson said.

Currently, he said, one true robot exists in dermatology: the Food and Drug Administration–cleared ARTAS Robotic Hair Restoration System, which precisely dissects follicular units from the donor area and eliminates the potential for human error. The device “extracts single follicular units from the occipital scalp and makes them available to the surgeon to do an artistic human job of implanting them in the frontal scalp,” Dr. Anderson said.

He predicts that a Mohs surgery robot with image-guided laser ablation would “launch a sea change in the whole field of surgical oncology, and I believe we are in a good position to do it. Everything for this is now sitting on the shelf and it’s unbelievable to me that a company hasn’t accomplished it yet.”

He would also like to see a true laser robot for surgery of tumors that would enable clinicians to download an app for their existing laser instead of having to buy a new device. Currently, “it takes about a half second to make a good optical coherence tomography image of basal cell carcinoma,” he said. “That image could be used for real-time robotic human control of, say, a laser to extirpate the tumor.”

Dr. Anderson’s “wish list” of applications for treatment with a robotic fractional laser includes those that target the sweat glands, sebaceous glands, nerves, inflammatory cells, white hair, blood vessels, lymphatics, hair, tumors, nevi, cysts, and surface contour. “It might be possible to have one software-programmable laser robot for many different applications in dermatology,” he added.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.





 

In the opinion of R. Rox Anderson, MD, it’s only a matter of time before true robots make further inroads in dermatology.

“We humans just can’t do everything perfectly,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who directs the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We have limited speed and special accuracy and are not good at repetitive tasks. We can’t see in the UV or infrared, and we’re qualitative, not quantitative. ... We’re good at high-level visual assessment.”

During a presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center, he distinguished between robotics and true robots. A prime example of robotics in medicine is the Da Vinci Surgical System in which a human user “is controlling every movement of this device with capabilities that humans don’t have, such as fine movement and high magnification of imaging,” said Dr. Anderson, who conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. “In the military, we have drone aircraft. The pilot is perhaps thousands of miles away; it’s still run by a human being in every way.”

By contrast, true robots are devices in which a human being programs the rules for action but the action itself is not exactly predictable. Artificial intelligence enables robots to perform certain tasks. “If you look at an Amazon warehouse, there’s barely anyone there; robots are packing and unpacking the shelves,” Dr. Anderson said.

Currently, he said, one true robot exists in dermatology: the Food and Drug Administration–cleared ARTAS Robotic Hair Restoration System, which precisely dissects follicular units from the donor area and eliminates the potential for human error. The device “extracts single follicular units from the occipital scalp and makes them available to the surgeon to do an artistic human job of implanting them in the frontal scalp,” Dr. Anderson said.

He predicts that a Mohs surgery robot with image-guided laser ablation would “launch a sea change in the whole field of surgical oncology, and I believe we are in a good position to do it. Everything for this is now sitting on the shelf and it’s unbelievable to me that a company hasn’t accomplished it yet.”

He would also like to see a true laser robot for surgery of tumors that would enable clinicians to download an app for their existing laser instead of having to buy a new device. Currently, “it takes about a half second to make a good optical coherence tomography image of basal cell carcinoma,” he said. “That image could be used for real-time robotic human control of, say, a laser to extirpate the tumor.”

Dr. Anderson’s “wish list” of applications for treatment with a robotic fractional laser includes those that target the sweat glands, sebaceous glands, nerves, inflammatory cells, white hair, blood vessels, lymphatics, hair, tumors, nevi, cysts, and surface contour. “It might be possible to have one software-programmable laser robot for many different applications in dermatology,” he added.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.





 

In the opinion of R. Rox Anderson, MD, it’s only a matter of time before true robots make further inroads in dermatology.

“We humans just can’t do everything perfectly,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who directs the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We have limited speed and special accuracy and are not good at repetitive tasks. We can’t see in the UV or infrared, and we’re qualitative, not quantitative. ... We’re good at high-level visual assessment.”

During a presentation at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center, he distinguished between robotics and true robots. A prime example of robotics in medicine is the Da Vinci Surgical System in which a human user “is controlling every movement of this device with capabilities that humans don’t have, such as fine movement and high magnification of imaging,” said Dr. Anderson, who conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. “In the military, we have drone aircraft. The pilot is perhaps thousands of miles away; it’s still run by a human being in every way.”

By contrast, true robots are devices in which a human being programs the rules for action but the action itself is not exactly predictable. Artificial intelligence enables robots to perform certain tasks. “If you look at an Amazon warehouse, there’s barely anyone there; robots are packing and unpacking the shelves,” Dr. Anderson said.

Currently, he said, one true robot exists in dermatology: the Food and Drug Administration–cleared ARTAS Robotic Hair Restoration System, which precisely dissects follicular units from the donor area and eliminates the potential for human error. The device “extracts single follicular units from the occipital scalp and makes them available to the surgeon to do an artistic human job of implanting them in the frontal scalp,” Dr. Anderson said.

He predicts that a Mohs surgery robot with image-guided laser ablation would “launch a sea change in the whole field of surgical oncology, and I believe we are in a good position to do it. Everything for this is now sitting on the shelf and it’s unbelievable to me that a company hasn’t accomplished it yet.”

He would also like to see a true laser robot for surgery of tumors that would enable clinicians to download an app for their existing laser instead of having to buy a new device. Currently, “it takes about a half second to make a good optical coherence tomography image of basal cell carcinoma,” he said. “That image could be used for real-time robotic human control of, say, a laser to extirpate the tumor.”

Dr. Anderson’s “wish list” of applications for treatment with a robotic fractional laser includes those that target the sweat glands, sebaceous glands, nerves, inflammatory cells, white hair, blood vessels, lymphatics, hair, tumors, nevi, cysts, and surface contour. “It might be possible to have one software-programmable laser robot for many different applications in dermatology,” he added.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.





 

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Patients who presented to a laser and cosmetic dermatology clinic were significantly more likely to be on a psychiatric medication and/or carry a psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those who presented to a medical dermatology clinic, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.

While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.

“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”

For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.

Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).

The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.

Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).

By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).

Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.

“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”

She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”

Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.

“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.

“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.

In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.

“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.






 

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER – The top three social media platforms used by patients who seek aesthetic medical treatments in the United States are Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.

Gerd Altmann/pixabay

Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.

“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”

To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.

Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.

The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.

When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.

When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.

As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.

“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”

Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.

INDIANAPOLIS – The way Maria C. Garzon, MD, sees it, capillary malformations are often misunderstood. She views them not as a single diagnosis but rather as a variety of conditions that fall under the term capillary malformation.

“The challenge is, we also use that term to describe a diagnosis,” Dr. Garzon, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We have imperfect terminology. We use many different terms like capillary nevi and vascular stain. Instead of port wine stain, we now use the term port wine birthmark, and old terms like nevus flammeus are still used. This leads to diagnostic confusion, and it’s a barrier to developing care guidelines.”

Some capillary malformations, she noted, are benign and fade away while others can cause disfigurement or herald significant medical issues.

Histologically, she continued, not all capillary malformations are composed of capillaries. “Some are composed of postcapillary venules,” she said. “There are also mixed type capillary malformations that include lymphatic tissue, and the capillary malformation of capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation (CM-AVM) syndrome shares histologic features of evolving AVMs as opposed to classic port wine birthmarks.”

The most recent International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies Classification of Vascular Anomalies was published in 2018 and is currently being updated. Other proposed clinical classifications have been published, including one that is diagnosis-specific and includes 20 different types of capillary malformations (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 29[12]:2295-305, Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33[6]:570-84).

“There are also syndromic classifications. Another question relates to the role of genomics: Are we ready for a classification that’s based purely on genetic variants, or do we need to incorporate it into existing classifications?” Dr. Garzon said. “Novel testing technologies using cell-free DNA and digital droplet PCR may be used in the future to establish diagnoses.” Genetic variants are found within capillary malformations, and they tend to be associated with three major pathways: the RAS-MAPK/ERK pathway, the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, and the G protein pathway.

The type of capillary malformation that dermatologists and pediatricians most commonly see is nevus simplex, which occurs in 20%-82% of neonates. Other terms used include angel’s kiss, stork bite, salmon patch, nevus flammeus simplex, fading vascular stain, medial telangiectatic nevus, and butterfly mark. “It’s important to differentiate this from a port wine birthmark,” Dr. Garzon said. “This can be challenging when the birthmark is a darker red color. I have cared for patients who were initially thought to have nevus simplex and later found to have Sturge-Weber syndrome.”

Typical locations of nevus simplex include the central forehead/glabella, eyelids, the nape of the neck, scalp (parietal and occipital), nose, lip area (including philtrum), and the back (lumbosacral area and upper back). Most lesions fade/disappear without treatment (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;63[5]:805-14). Rare genetic syndromes associated with exaggerated nevus simplex complex include macrocephaly-capillary malformation syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, “which tells us that this is a heterogeneous group of patients,” she said.

Dr. Garzon added that it’s “incredibly common” to see an eczema flare occurring within a nevus simplex on the nape of the neck. These patients will have a patch of atopic dermatitis that doesn’t get better. “Beneath it is their nevus simplex,” she said. “Remind parents that even after treating the eczema, the pink patch is not going to go away” (Pediatr Rep. 2021;13[1]:131-4).

Meanwhile, the classic port wine birthmark is usually congenital, uniform, and darker red in color. It darkens with maturity and the pattern will correlate with embryonic vasculature. “I am very wary of acquired port wine lesions,” she added. “It’s been described with trauma-related lesions, but early morphea can also mimic a port wine birthmark. You will see this if you’re practicing pediatric dermatology.”

Nearly a decade ago researchers established a link between port wine birthmarks and genetic variants in the GNAQ gene. “We see this in GNA11 as well,” Dr. Garzon said. “These changes are found in isolated port wine stains, and in Sturge-Weber syndrome. We now know that GNAQ drives the formation of large blood vessels through angiopoietin-2,” she noted (Arterioscler Throm Vasc Biol. 2022;42[1]:e27-43).

In general, studies that have examined genotype-phenotype correlations have demonstrated that the classic port wine birthmark is associated with GNAQ while GNA11 variants can be associated with a more reticulated pattern. “But this is not as clearcut as it seems,” she said. Investigators of a recent study showed an association between hypertension and renal anomalies in patients with skin capillary malformations and mosaic GNAQ or GNA11 variants. “This is a new finding,” she said. “Investigators are working to understand this association.”

Port wine birthmarks with the highest risk of Sturge-Weber syndrome include those that involve the forehead, upper eyelid, the midline frontonasal area, the hemifacial area, and median sites. “Patients who have this should be evaluated at birth,” Dr. Garzon said. “You should not delay for 2 months. They should be evaluated by ophthalmology and neurology early.”

The other morphologies commonly seen are “geographic” well-demarcated capillary malformations, which are dark in color. These lesions can be seen in conditions that are associated with genetic variants in PIK3CA (PROS) and include classic Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome, CLOVES (congenital lipomatous overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, scoliosis/skeletal and spinal) syndrome, and CLAPO (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry of the face and limbs, and partial or generalized overgrowth) syndrome.

“Reticulated stains are much more heterogeneous,” Dr. Garzon said. “They can be localized or widespread. When you see a patient with a widespread reticulated capillary malformation, think about diffuse capillary malformation with overgrowth (DCMO). This condition is clinically and genetically heterogenous with the affected tissue of some patients showing variants in GNA11 while others have variants in PIK3CA. Therefore, a thorough examination at presentation and long-term follow-up is very important.”

Dr. Garzon disclosed that she is a member of the executive board for the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies.

INDIANAPOLIS – The way Maria C. Garzon, MD, sees it, capillary malformations are often misunderstood. She views them not as a single diagnosis but rather as a variety of conditions that fall under the term capillary malformation.

“The challenge is, we also use that term to describe a diagnosis,” Dr. Garzon, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We have imperfect terminology. We use many different terms like capillary nevi and vascular stain. Instead of port wine stain, we now use the term port wine birthmark, and old terms like nevus flammeus are still used. This leads to diagnostic confusion, and it’s a barrier to developing care guidelines.”

Some capillary malformations, she noted, are benign and fade away while others can cause disfigurement or herald significant medical issues.

Histologically, she continued, not all capillary malformations are composed of capillaries. “Some are composed of postcapillary venules,” she said. “There are also mixed type capillary malformations that include lymphatic tissue, and the capillary malformation of capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation (CM-AVM) syndrome shares histologic features of evolving AVMs as opposed to classic port wine birthmarks.”

The most recent International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies Classification of Vascular Anomalies was published in 2018 and is currently being updated. Other proposed clinical classifications have been published, including one that is diagnosis-specific and includes 20 different types of capillary malformations (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 29[12]:2295-305, Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33[6]:570-84).

“There are also syndromic classifications. Another question relates to the role of genomics: Are we ready for a classification that’s based purely on genetic variants, or do we need to incorporate it into existing classifications?” Dr. Garzon said. “Novel testing technologies using cell-free DNA and digital droplet PCR may be used in the future to establish diagnoses.” Genetic variants are found within capillary malformations, and they tend to be associated with three major pathways: the RAS-MAPK/ERK pathway, the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, and the G protein pathway.

The type of capillary malformation that dermatologists and pediatricians most commonly see is nevus simplex, which occurs in 20%-82% of neonates. Other terms used include angel’s kiss, stork bite, salmon patch, nevus flammeus simplex, fading vascular stain, medial telangiectatic nevus, and butterfly mark. “It’s important to differentiate this from a port wine birthmark,” Dr. Garzon said. “This can be challenging when the birthmark is a darker red color. I have cared for patients who were initially thought to have nevus simplex and later found to have Sturge-Weber syndrome.”

Typical locations of nevus simplex include the central forehead/glabella, eyelids, the nape of the neck, scalp (parietal and occipital), nose, lip area (including philtrum), and the back (lumbosacral area and upper back). Most lesions fade/disappear without treatment (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;63[5]:805-14). Rare genetic syndromes associated with exaggerated nevus simplex complex include macrocephaly-capillary malformation syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, “which tells us that this is a heterogeneous group of patients,” she said.

Dr. Garzon added that it’s “incredibly common” to see an eczema flare occurring within a nevus simplex on the nape of the neck. These patients will have a patch of atopic dermatitis that doesn’t get better. “Beneath it is their nevus simplex,” she said. “Remind parents that even after treating the eczema, the pink patch is not going to go away” (Pediatr Rep. 2021;13[1]:131-4).

Meanwhile, the classic port wine birthmark is usually congenital, uniform, and darker red in color. It darkens with maturity and the pattern will correlate with embryonic vasculature. “I am very wary of acquired port wine lesions,” she added. “It’s been described with trauma-related lesions, but early morphea can also mimic a port wine birthmark. You will see this if you’re practicing pediatric dermatology.”

Nearly a decade ago researchers established a link between port wine birthmarks and genetic variants in the GNAQ gene. “We see this in GNA11 as well,” Dr. Garzon said. “These changes are found in isolated port wine stains, and in Sturge-Weber syndrome. We now know that GNAQ drives the formation of large blood vessels through angiopoietin-2,” she noted (Arterioscler Throm Vasc Biol. 2022;42[1]:e27-43).

In general, studies that have examined genotype-phenotype correlations have demonstrated that the classic port wine birthmark is associated with GNAQ while GNA11 variants can be associated with a more reticulated pattern. “But this is not as clearcut as it seems,” she said. Investigators of a recent study showed an association between hypertension and renal anomalies in patients with skin capillary malformations and mosaic GNAQ or GNA11 variants. “This is a new finding,” she said. “Investigators are working to understand this association.”

Port wine birthmarks with the highest risk of Sturge-Weber syndrome include those that involve the forehead, upper eyelid, the midline frontonasal area, the hemifacial area, and median sites. “Patients who have this should be evaluated at birth,” Dr. Garzon said. “You should not delay for 2 months. They should be evaluated by ophthalmology and neurology early.”

The other morphologies commonly seen are “geographic” well-demarcated capillary malformations, which are dark in color. These lesions can be seen in conditions that are associated with genetic variants in PIK3CA (PROS) and include classic Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome, CLOVES (congenital lipomatous overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, scoliosis/skeletal and spinal) syndrome, and CLAPO (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry of the face and limbs, and partial or generalized overgrowth) syndrome.

“Reticulated stains are much more heterogeneous,” Dr. Garzon said. “They can be localized or widespread. When you see a patient with a widespread reticulated capillary malformation, think about diffuse capillary malformation with overgrowth (DCMO). This condition is clinically and genetically heterogenous with the affected tissue of some patients showing variants in GNA11 while others have variants in PIK3CA. Therefore, a thorough examination at presentation and long-term follow-up is very important.”

Dr. Garzon disclosed that she is a member of the executive board for the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies.

INDIANAPOLIS – The way Maria C. Garzon, MD, sees it, capillary malformations are often misunderstood. She views them not as a single diagnosis but rather as a variety of conditions that fall under the term capillary malformation.

“The challenge is, we also use that term to describe a diagnosis,” Dr. Garzon, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We have imperfect terminology. We use many different terms like capillary nevi and vascular stain. Instead of port wine stain, we now use the term port wine birthmark, and old terms like nevus flammeus are still used. This leads to diagnostic confusion, and it’s a barrier to developing care guidelines.”

Some capillary malformations, she noted, are benign and fade away while others can cause disfigurement or herald significant medical issues.

Histologically, she continued, not all capillary malformations are composed of capillaries. “Some are composed of postcapillary venules,” she said. “There are also mixed type capillary malformations that include lymphatic tissue, and the capillary malformation of capillary malformation-arteriovenous malformation (CM-AVM) syndrome shares histologic features of evolving AVMs as opposed to classic port wine birthmarks.”

The most recent International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies Classification of Vascular Anomalies was published in 2018 and is currently being updated. Other proposed clinical classifications have been published, including one that is diagnosis-specific and includes 20 different types of capillary malformations (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 29[12]:2295-305, Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33[6]:570-84).

“There are also syndromic classifications. Another question relates to the role of genomics: Are we ready for a classification that’s based purely on genetic variants, or do we need to incorporate it into existing classifications?” Dr. Garzon said. “Novel testing technologies using cell-free DNA and digital droplet PCR may be used in the future to establish diagnoses.” Genetic variants are found within capillary malformations, and they tend to be associated with three major pathways: the RAS-MAPK/ERK pathway, the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, and the G protein pathway.

The type of capillary malformation that dermatologists and pediatricians most commonly see is nevus simplex, which occurs in 20%-82% of neonates. Other terms used include angel’s kiss, stork bite, salmon patch, nevus flammeus simplex, fading vascular stain, medial telangiectatic nevus, and butterfly mark. “It’s important to differentiate this from a port wine birthmark,” Dr. Garzon said. “This can be challenging when the birthmark is a darker red color. I have cared for patients who were initially thought to have nevus simplex and later found to have Sturge-Weber syndrome.”

Typical locations of nevus simplex include the central forehead/glabella, eyelids, the nape of the neck, scalp (parietal and occipital), nose, lip area (including philtrum), and the back (lumbosacral area and upper back). Most lesions fade/disappear without treatment (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;63[5]:805-14). Rare genetic syndromes associated with exaggerated nevus simplex complex include macrocephaly-capillary malformation syndrome and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, “which tells us that this is a heterogeneous group of patients,” she said.

Dr. Garzon added that it’s “incredibly common” to see an eczema flare occurring within a nevus simplex on the nape of the neck. These patients will have a patch of atopic dermatitis that doesn’t get better. “Beneath it is their nevus simplex,” she said. “Remind parents that even after treating the eczema, the pink patch is not going to go away” (Pediatr Rep. 2021;13[1]:131-4).

Meanwhile, the classic port wine birthmark is usually congenital, uniform, and darker red in color. It darkens with maturity and the pattern will correlate with embryonic vasculature. “I am very wary of acquired port wine lesions,” she added. “It’s been described with trauma-related lesions, but early morphea can also mimic a port wine birthmark. You will see this if you’re practicing pediatric dermatology.”

Nearly a decade ago researchers established a link between port wine birthmarks and genetic variants in the GNAQ gene. “We see this in GNA11 as well,” Dr. Garzon said. “These changes are found in isolated port wine stains, and in Sturge-Weber syndrome. We now know that GNAQ drives the formation of large blood vessels through angiopoietin-2,” she noted (Arterioscler Throm Vasc Biol. 2022;42[1]:e27-43).

In general, studies that have examined genotype-phenotype correlations have demonstrated that the classic port wine birthmark is associated with GNAQ while GNA11 variants can be associated with a more reticulated pattern. “But this is not as clearcut as it seems,” she said. Investigators of a recent study showed an association between hypertension and renal anomalies in patients with skin capillary malformations and mosaic GNAQ or GNA11 variants. “This is a new finding,” she said. “Investigators are working to understand this association.”

Port wine birthmarks with the highest risk of Sturge-Weber syndrome include those that involve the forehead, upper eyelid, the midline frontonasal area, the hemifacial area, and median sites. “Patients who have this should be evaluated at birth,” Dr. Garzon said. “You should not delay for 2 months. They should be evaluated by ophthalmology and neurology early.”

The other morphologies commonly seen are “geographic” well-demarcated capillary malformations, which are dark in color. These lesions can be seen in conditions that are associated with genetic variants in PIK3CA (PROS) and include classic Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome, CLOVES (congenital lipomatous overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, scoliosis/skeletal and spinal) syndrome, and CLAPO (capillary malformation of the lower lip, lymphatic malformation of the face and neck, asymmetry of the face and limbs, and partial or generalized overgrowth) syndrome.

“Reticulated stains are much more heterogeneous,” Dr. Garzon said. “They can be localized or widespread. When you see a patient with a widespread reticulated capillary malformation, think about diffuse capillary malformation with overgrowth (DCMO). This condition is clinically and genetically heterogenous with the affected tissue of some patients showing variants in GNA11 while others have variants in PIK3CA. Therefore, a thorough examination at presentation and long-term follow-up is very important.”

Dr. Garzon disclosed that she is a member of the executive board for the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies.

DENVER – When Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, meets with patients who seek treatment options for scars, the first thing she explains is that she can’t erase them.

“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”

Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.

Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.

Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.

Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”

Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”

In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.

A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
 

Hyperpigmentation

Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO₂ laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.

When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.

Hypopigmented, atrophic scars

In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.

For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”

She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”

For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”

Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.

DENVER – When Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, meets with patients who seek treatment options for scars, the first thing she explains is that she can’t erase them.

“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”

Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.

Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.

Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.

Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”

Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”

In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.

A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
 

Hyperpigmentation

Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO₂ laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.

When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.

Hypopigmented, atrophic scars

In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.

For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”

She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”

For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”

Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.

DENVER – When Arisa E. Ortiz, MD, meets with patients who seek treatment options for scars, the first thing she explains is that she can’t erase them.

“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”

Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.

Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.

Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.

Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”

Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”

In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.

A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
 

Hyperpigmentation

Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO₂ laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.

When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.

Hypopigmented, atrophic scars

In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.

For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”

She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”

For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”

Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”

Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Use of subcutaneous ropivacaine for Mohs surgery in highly vascularized anatomical regions such as the nose results in significantly shorter duration of anesthesia compared with less vascularized regions such as the shin, results from a single-center study showed.

Ropivacaine is a long-acting anesthetic that may be used as a substitute for the more commonly local anesthetics such as lidocaine or bupivacaine in dermatologic surgery, lead study author Kira Minkis, MD, PhD, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the study results were presented during an oral abstract session. By comparison, ropivacaine has been reported to have a faster onset, similar duration in the range of 6-14 hours, less pain upon injection, and inherent vasoconstrictive properties.

“With tumescent anesthesia, studies have previously shown that the rate and absorption of anesthetics is influenced by the site of administration,” said Dr. Minkis, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “In studies comparing absorption of local anesthetics in tumescent anesthesia by regions that differ in vascularity, peak serum concentrations are greater and rise more rapidly after use in the head and neck compared to the trunk and extremities. However, no studies to date have compared the duration of ropivacaine in highly vascularized tissue or compared duration between regions that differ in vascularity.” The aim of the study, she noted, was to characterize the difference in duration of ropivacaine’s effects between anatomic regions of rich and comparably poor vascularity, such as the face and extremities, respectively.

Dr. Minkis and her colleagues recruited 17 women and 12 men with a mean age of 72 years who underwent Mohs surgery on the nose or the shin at Weill Cornell Medicine. Patients were anesthetized at each site with a subcutaneous injection of 0.5 mL of ropivacaine, 0.2%. Sensation was determined by pinprick prior to injection, at baseline, and every 15 minutes until sensation returned or surgery concluded. The primary endpoint was time to return of pinprick sensation.

The researchers found that the duration of ropivacaine was significantly shorter on the nose (a median of 60 minutes) than on the shin (a median of 210 minutes). In fact, the upper limit of the range of duration at the shin was not determinable because 22 of the 29 (76%) of participants did not regain sensation on the shin prior to leaving the surgical suite and concluding the study. The proportion of study participants who regained sensation within 1 hour was 76% among those who were treated on the nose vs. 3% of those who were treated on the shin (P < .0001).

“With durations of up to 6-14 hours reported, our results indicate a strikingly shorter duration of local anesthesia in highly vascularized tissue,” Dr. Minkis said. “The brevity of local anesthesia is even more surprising given the intrinsic vasoconstrictive properties of ropivacaine. Often, we co-administer epinephrine to achieve vasoconstriction and reduce local blood flow, thus prolonging local concentrations of the anesthetic with the added benefit of reducing bleeding during surgery. The short duration we’ve observed in our study is emphasized in using a potent, long-acting local anesthetic with vasoconstrictive properties that otherwise should attenuate the effects of high local vascularity.”

In other findings, patients with history of hypertension were more likely to regain sensation on the nose by 60 minutes but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .079). Other comorbidities including underlying anxiety/depression, diabetes, and kidney disease did not significantly impact duration of ropivacaine action on the nose. The same held true for patients who were treated on the shin.

“We highlight an inconsistency between the reported duration of a long-lasting local anesthetic and the short-lived anesthesia experienced by our patients in a highly vascularized region,” Dr. Minkis said. “In practice, adjunctive use of a long-acting anesthetic to prolong anesthesia is common, which may provide relief from multiple injections of shorter-acting lidocaine. However, the duration of Mohs surgery can be unpredictable. Extended wait times between stages may exceed the duration we’ve observed in this study.”

In addition, she continued, “pain is frequently reported on postoperative days 0 to 3, leading some to recommend the use of long-acting local anesthetics to prevent overprescription or a gap in pain coverage. This emphasizes a gap in effective pain control, but also an opportunity to improve our patients’ surgical and recovery experiences.”

 

Impact on practice

Keith L. Duffy, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in light of current local anesthetic shortages and back orders, “we dermatologic surgeons have been experimenting with different anesthetics and concentrations that we can use in our patients. Ropivacaine may become the anesthetic of choice for many of our practices given its inherent properties.”

The duration of anesthetic effects by anatomic location in this study is “actually more impressive than I would have suspected as a practicing Mohs surgeon. The results of this study will immediately impact my Mohs surgery clinic,” he said, adding that he hoped that Dr. Minkis and others “will expand on this study to include more patients, different anesthetics, and more anatomic locations.”

Dr. Minkis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and the fact that there were too few observations of medical and clinical characteristics for subgroup analysis.

She and Dr. Duffy reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – Use of subcutaneous ropivacaine for Mohs surgery in highly vascularized anatomical regions such as the nose results in significantly shorter duration of anesthesia compared with less vascularized regions such as the shin, results from a single-center study showed.

Ropivacaine is a long-acting anesthetic that may be used as a substitute for the more commonly local anesthetics such as lidocaine or bupivacaine in dermatologic surgery, lead study author Kira Minkis, MD, PhD, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the study results were presented during an oral abstract session. By comparison, ropivacaine has been reported to have a faster onset, similar duration in the range of 6-14 hours, less pain upon injection, and inherent vasoconstrictive properties.

“With tumescent anesthesia, studies have previously shown that the rate and absorption of anesthetics is influenced by the site of administration,” said Dr. Minkis, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “In studies comparing absorption of local anesthetics in tumescent anesthesia by regions that differ in vascularity, peak serum concentrations are greater and rise more rapidly after use in the head and neck compared to the trunk and extremities. However, no studies to date have compared the duration of ropivacaine in highly vascularized tissue or compared duration between regions that differ in vascularity.” The aim of the study, she noted, was to characterize the difference in duration of ropivacaine’s effects between anatomic regions of rich and comparably poor vascularity, such as the face and extremities, respectively.

Dr. Minkis and her colleagues recruited 17 women and 12 men with a mean age of 72 years who underwent Mohs surgery on the nose or the shin at Weill Cornell Medicine. Patients were anesthetized at each site with a subcutaneous injection of 0.5 mL of ropivacaine, 0.2%. Sensation was determined by pinprick prior to injection, at baseline, and every 15 minutes until sensation returned or surgery concluded. The primary endpoint was time to return of pinprick sensation.

The researchers found that the duration of ropivacaine was significantly shorter on the nose (a median of 60 minutes) than on the shin (a median of 210 minutes). In fact, the upper limit of the range of duration at the shin was not determinable because 22 of the 29 (76%) of participants did not regain sensation on the shin prior to leaving the surgical suite and concluding the study. The proportion of study participants who regained sensation within 1 hour was 76% among those who were treated on the nose vs. 3% of those who were treated on the shin (P < .0001).

“With durations of up to 6-14 hours reported, our results indicate a strikingly shorter duration of local anesthesia in highly vascularized tissue,” Dr. Minkis said. “The brevity of local anesthesia is even more surprising given the intrinsic vasoconstrictive properties of ropivacaine. Often, we co-administer epinephrine to achieve vasoconstriction and reduce local blood flow, thus prolonging local concentrations of the anesthetic with the added benefit of reducing bleeding during surgery. The short duration we’ve observed in our study is emphasized in using a potent, long-acting local anesthetic with vasoconstrictive properties that otherwise should attenuate the effects of high local vascularity.”

In other findings, patients with history of hypertension were more likely to regain sensation on the nose by 60 minutes but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .079). Other comorbidities including underlying anxiety/depression, diabetes, and kidney disease did not significantly impact duration of ropivacaine action on the nose. The same held true for patients who were treated on the shin.

“We highlight an inconsistency between the reported duration of a long-lasting local anesthetic and the short-lived anesthesia experienced by our patients in a highly vascularized region,” Dr. Minkis said. “In practice, adjunctive use of a long-acting anesthetic to prolong anesthesia is common, which may provide relief from multiple injections of shorter-acting lidocaine. However, the duration of Mohs surgery can be unpredictable. Extended wait times between stages may exceed the duration we’ve observed in this study.”

In addition, she continued, “pain is frequently reported on postoperative days 0 to 3, leading some to recommend the use of long-acting local anesthetics to prevent overprescription or a gap in pain coverage. This emphasizes a gap in effective pain control, but also an opportunity to improve our patients’ surgical and recovery experiences.”

 

Impact on practice

Keith L. Duffy, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in light of current local anesthetic shortages and back orders, “we dermatologic surgeons have been experimenting with different anesthetics and concentrations that we can use in our patients. Ropivacaine may become the anesthetic of choice for many of our practices given its inherent properties.”

The duration of anesthetic effects by anatomic location in this study is “actually more impressive than I would have suspected as a practicing Mohs surgeon. The results of this study will immediately impact my Mohs surgery clinic,” he said, adding that he hoped that Dr. Minkis and others “will expand on this study to include more patients, different anesthetics, and more anatomic locations.”

Dr. Minkis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and the fact that there were too few observations of medical and clinical characteristics for subgroup analysis.

She and Dr. Duffy reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – Use of subcutaneous ropivacaine for Mohs surgery in highly vascularized anatomical regions such as the nose results in significantly shorter duration of anesthesia compared with less vascularized regions such as the shin, results from a single-center study showed.

Ropivacaine is a long-acting anesthetic that may be used as a substitute for the more commonly local anesthetics such as lidocaine or bupivacaine in dermatologic surgery, lead study author Kira Minkis, MD, PhD, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the study results were presented during an oral abstract session. By comparison, ropivacaine has been reported to have a faster onset, similar duration in the range of 6-14 hours, less pain upon injection, and inherent vasoconstrictive properties.

“With tumescent anesthesia, studies have previously shown that the rate and absorption of anesthetics is influenced by the site of administration,” said Dr. Minkis, director of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “In studies comparing absorption of local anesthetics in tumescent anesthesia by regions that differ in vascularity, peak serum concentrations are greater and rise more rapidly after use in the head and neck compared to the trunk and extremities. However, no studies to date have compared the duration of ropivacaine in highly vascularized tissue or compared duration between regions that differ in vascularity.” The aim of the study, she noted, was to characterize the difference in duration of ropivacaine’s effects between anatomic regions of rich and comparably poor vascularity, such as the face and extremities, respectively.

Dr. Minkis and her colleagues recruited 17 women and 12 men with a mean age of 72 years who underwent Mohs surgery on the nose or the shin at Weill Cornell Medicine. Patients were anesthetized at each site with a subcutaneous injection of 0.5 mL of ropivacaine, 0.2%. Sensation was determined by pinprick prior to injection, at baseline, and every 15 minutes until sensation returned or surgery concluded. The primary endpoint was time to return of pinprick sensation.

The researchers found that the duration of ropivacaine was significantly shorter on the nose (a median of 60 minutes) than on the shin (a median of 210 minutes). In fact, the upper limit of the range of duration at the shin was not determinable because 22 of the 29 (76%) of participants did not regain sensation on the shin prior to leaving the surgical suite and concluding the study. The proportion of study participants who regained sensation within 1 hour was 76% among those who were treated on the nose vs. 3% of those who were treated on the shin (P < .0001).

“With durations of up to 6-14 hours reported, our results indicate a strikingly shorter duration of local anesthesia in highly vascularized tissue,” Dr. Minkis said. “The brevity of local anesthesia is even more surprising given the intrinsic vasoconstrictive properties of ropivacaine. Often, we co-administer epinephrine to achieve vasoconstriction and reduce local blood flow, thus prolonging local concentrations of the anesthetic with the added benefit of reducing bleeding during surgery. The short duration we’ve observed in our study is emphasized in using a potent, long-acting local anesthetic with vasoconstrictive properties that otherwise should attenuate the effects of high local vascularity.”

In other findings, patients with history of hypertension were more likely to regain sensation on the nose by 60 minutes but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .079). Other comorbidities including underlying anxiety/depression, diabetes, and kidney disease did not significantly impact duration of ropivacaine action on the nose. The same held true for patients who were treated on the shin.

“We highlight an inconsistency between the reported duration of a long-lasting local anesthetic and the short-lived anesthesia experienced by our patients in a highly vascularized region,” Dr. Minkis said. “In practice, adjunctive use of a long-acting anesthetic to prolong anesthesia is common, which may provide relief from multiple injections of shorter-acting lidocaine. However, the duration of Mohs surgery can be unpredictable. Extended wait times between stages may exceed the duration we’ve observed in this study.”

In addition, she continued, “pain is frequently reported on postoperative days 0 to 3, leading some to recommend the use of long-acting local anesthetics to prevent overprescription or a gap in pain coverage. This emphasizes a gap in effective pain control, but also an opportunity to improve our patients’ surgical and recovery experiences.”

 

Impact on practice

Keith L. Duffy, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in light of current local anesthetic shortages and back orders, “we dermatologic surgeons have been experimenting with different anesthetics and concentrations that we can use in our patients. Ropivacaine may become the anesthetic of choice for many of our practices given its inherent properties.”

The duration of anesthetic effects by anatomic location in this study is “actually more impressive than I would have suspected as a practicing Mohs surgeon. The results of this study will immediately impact my Mohs surgery clinic,” he said, adding that he hoped that Dr. Minkis and others “will expand on this study to include more patients, different anesthetics, and more anatomic locations.”

Dr. Minkis acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and the fact that there were too few observations of medical and clinical characteristics for subgroup analysis.

She and Dr. Duffy reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – One expert’s clinical experience suggests that Ellacor, a dermal microcoring device that became available in the United States in October 2022, is an effective treatment for facial wrinkles and tightening.

“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.

A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.

“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”

The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”

In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.

In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.

Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.

Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.

DENVER – One expert’s clinical experience suggests that Ellacor, a dermal microcoring device that became available in the United States in October 2022, is an effective treatment for facial wrinkles and tightening.

“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.

A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.

“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”

The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”

In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.

In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.

Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.

Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.

DENVER – One expert’s clinical experience suggests that Ellacor, a dermal microcoring device that became available in the United States in October 2022, is an effective treatment for facial wrinkles and tightening.

“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.

A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.

“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”

The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”

In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.

In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.

Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.

Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”

Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.