MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050113054 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181a83772

Late-Onset Infections and Granuloma Formation after Facial Polylactic Acid (New-Fill) Injections in Women Who Are Heavy Smokers

2009· letter· en· W2050113054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Babak Azizzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLipoatrophyDermisForeign body granulomaAdverse effectGranulomaPolylactic acidWrinkleHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DermatologyGranuloma formationNasolabial foldSurgeryInternal medicinePathologyViral loadAntiretroviral therapyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir: I read with interest the article entitled “Late-Onset Infections and Granuloma Formation after Facial Polylactic Acid (New-Fill) Injections in Women Who Are Heavy Smokers” by Goldan et al. (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:336e–338e). The authors reported four patients with infection and granuloma formation after receiving New-Fill injections 2 to 6 months before admission. I would like to clarify several issues concerning the use of injectable poly-L-lactic acid, which is marketed both as New-Fill and as Sculptra in Europe, and as Sculptra in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil. My comments are based on my experience with Sculptra, which is approved in the United States for the treatment of facial fat loss (lipoatrophy) in people with human immunodeficiency virus.1 It is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for volume restoration and/or correction of wrinkles and folds such as nasolabial lines or folds. The description of infection and palpable nodules “under the skin or the lip vermilion” in these patients suggests that some or all patients received injections in the lip and/or perioral regions, a practice not advisable or recommended by the manufacturer.2 Injectable poly-L-lactic acid should be injected into the deep dermis or subcutaneous layer, taking special care in areas of thin skin.1,2 Injectable poly-L-lactic acid, when correctly and appropriately administered, has been shown to have a good safety profile.2,3 Adverse events often are associated with inappropriate reconstitution, injection volumes, and injection technique2; increased awareness of the appropriate use of injectable poly-L-lactic acid by trained and experienced physicians has resulted in a low incidence of adverse events.2,3 An adverse reaction such as nodule formation is a well-known effect of soft-tissue augmentation,4 and the risk with injectable poly-L-lactic acid may be reduced by appropriate reconstitution, injection, and postprocedure techniques.1 In the present cases, no information is provided about previous augmentation procedures, injection technique (site and depth), or the dilution of injectable poly-L-lactic acid used, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the patients’ conditions. In my clinical experience, greater dilutions (6 to 10 ml) of injectable poly-L-lactic acid are preferable to the 5 ml of diluent per vial recommended by the manufacturer.1 Needle size is important in preventing clusters of injectable poly-L-lactic acid after injection: 26-gauge needles should be used.1 Furthermore, it is unclear whether any of these patients received multiple product injections, and if so, whether sufficient intervals were allowed between treatments to prevent overcorrection, given the gradual increase in volume over weeks to months associated with the product’s demonstrated clinical performance.3 The authors also note that the patients were generally healthy except for being heavy smokers. It is known that smoking results in numerous harmful cutaneous effects, including poor wound healing, increased pathogenic oral bacterial colonization, and enhanced bacterial binding to oral epithelial cells.5 Smoking status may therefore have contributed to development of infection at the injection site and should be taken into account in assessing risk versus benefit for any patients desiring surgical and noninvasive facial rejuvenation, regardless of the injectable product used. Babak Azizzadeh, M.D. The Center for Facial and Nasal Plastic Surgery 8670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, Calif. 90211 [email protected] DISCLOSURES Editorial support for this letter was provided by Dermik Laboratories, a business of Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. The opinions expressed in the current letter are those of the author. The author received no honoraria or other form of financial support related to the development of this letter.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207