MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389193125 · doi:10.4103/jcas.jcas_99_23

Anaphylactic reaction to hyaluronidase use for a complication of lip augmentation with hyaluronic acid

2023· article· en· W4389193125 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Wild, Luiz Felipe Palma, Susana Morimoto, Priscilla Aparecida Pereira

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHyaluronic acidMedicineHyaluronidaseAllergic reactionIncidence (geometry)AllergyAnaphylactic reactionsSurgeryAdverse effectDermatologyAnaphylaxisImmunologyPharmacologyEnzymeBiochemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Hyaluronidase, an enzyme that degrades hyaluronic acid, has received approval for numerous medical applications by regulatory agencies worldwide. Its most well-known indications (e.g., hypodermoclysis and hematoma absorption) have been established for over 60 years. However, other potential uses of hyaluronidase such as dissolving hyaluronic acid fillers are currently off-label.[1] As a result of the growing demand for noninvasive rejuvenation procedures, soft tissue augmentations have gained significant popularity. This trend, however, has also led to an increase in the incidence of undesirable events.[2] The use of hyaluronidase for the correction of complications arising from hyaluronic acid fillers, therefore, has become a common practice in daily medical care. Concomitantly, there has been substantial growth in the number of papers on the potential risk of adverse reactions related to the administration of this enzyme.[3] Hyaluronidase is thought to be a potential allergen, which can lead to the onset of allergic/hypersensitivity reactions, mainly after many hours from the application (i.e., delayed reactions).[4,5] In light of these facts, the current paper aims to briefly present the first report case in which a female patient experienced an anaphylactic reaction to hyaluronidase. A 40-year-old Caucasian woman underwent lip augmentation, and the hyaluronic acid filler overflowed from an injection site, resulting in an unaesthetic outcome (asymmetry) due to the formation of a small, non-fluctuant nodule of a non-inflammatory nature on the upper lip [Figure 1A]. Following the recommendations of the Global Aesthetics Consensus Group,[6] massage and an antibiotic drug were prescribed, but there was no improvement.Figure 1:: Clinical Progression. (A) Pretreatment clinical appearance. (B) Clinical appearance shortly after administration of hyaluronidase. (C) Clinical appearance 30min after administration of hyaluronidase. (D) Clinical appearance 6 months after the anaphylactic reactionSeven days later, she received an injection of 0.4 UI of hyaluronidase (Biometil®, Laboratório Biometil, São Bento do Sul, SC, Brazil; source: purified bovine testicle) for the management of the unwanted event. Within a few minutes, the patient experienced breathing difficulty and significant edema affecting the upper lip [Figure 1B and C]. A tablet of bilastine 20mg was administered, without success. She also did not report any prior allergic event related to animal stings, such as bees and spiders. The patient was quickly taken to a hospital, where the diagnosis of an anaphylactic reaction to hyaluronidase was confirmed. She received epinephrine, a corticosteroid, and an antihistamine via parenteral administration, which resulted in prompt stabilization of her condition. She was hospitalized for 24h for observation and further supportive care. Afterward, oral dexamethasone was prescribed every 8h for 7 days. The facial edema gradually reduced over some months, probably due to concurrent histaminergic angioedema, a drug-induced condition that is usually associated with anaphylaxis reactions and may become chronic, lasting for long periods.[7] Unfortunately, she did not agree to undergo a biopsy due to aesthetic concerns regarding a potentially noticeable scar, which may be considered a major limitation in the diagnosis process. However, after a period of 6 months, there were no longer any visible signs of an allergic reaction to hyaluronidase [Figure 1D]. It is important to highlight that allergy skin testing should always be conducted before using hyaluronidase; however, only a few actually do that. For example, in Canada, 9% of plastic surgeons who have experience using this enzyme for the management of hyaluronic acid fillers-associated complication performs hypersensibility tests.[8] History of allergic reactions or anaphylaxis to animal stings is another crucial information to be obtained before using hyaluronidase. Hyaluronidase is also present in the venoms of many animals (e.g., snakes, leeches, scorpions, bees, caterpillars, and spiders), which is responsible for the spread of other substances and toxins through the tissues.[9] Thus, based on the patient’s past medical history, the use of hyaluronidase must be contraindicated in these specific cases.[10] In conclusion, while hyaluronidase is generally considered a safe and efficient agent for treating some complications resulting from aesthetic orofacial procedures with hyaluronic acid, clinicians must be highly attentive to the potential risk of allergic or anaphylactic reactions associated with its use. Obtaining an in-depth medical history of the patient and performing allergy skin testing are cornerstone strategies to mitigate the risk of undesirable events from the application of hyaluronidase. Declaration of patient consent The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has given her consent for her images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that her name and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal her identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,823
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,289

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic SurgeryMême sujetFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesTravaux en français237 207