MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Wild, Luiz Felipe Palma, Susana Morimoto, Priscilla Aparecida Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyaluronic acidMedicineHyaluronidaseAllergic reactionIncidence (geometry)AllergyAnaphylactic reactionsSurgeryAdverse effectDermatologyAnaphylaxisImmunologyPharmacologyEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207