Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270603›Full record

ArticleJAMA facial plastic surgery2018

A Cross-sectional Analysis of Adverse Events and Litigation for Injectable Fillers.

Hani M Rayess, Peter F Svider, Curtis Hanba, Vivek Sagar Patel, Louis M DeJoseph, Michael Carron, Giancarlo F Zuliani

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA facial plastic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Treatment of the Temples: Brazilian Consensus.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hani M RayessDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Peter F SviderDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Curtis HanbaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Vivek Sagar PatelFacial Plastic Surgery Associates, Houston, Texas.
Louis M DeJosephPremier Image Cosmetic and Laser Surgery, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael CarronDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Giancarlo F ZulianiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Wayne State University · USFacial Plastics Surgery Associates · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceInjectable fillers are increasing in popularity as a noninvasive option to address concerns related to facial aging and volume loss. To our knowledge, there have been no large-scale analyses of adverse events and associated litigation related to filler injections.

objectivesTo determine risks of injectable fillers and analyze factors raised in litigation related to injectable fillers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsIn this cross-sectional review, the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) manufacturer and user facility device experience (MAUDE) database was evaluated for complications from the use of the following fillers: Juvederm, Restylane, Belotero, Sculptra, Radiesse, Artefill, Bellafill, and Juvederm Voluma from 2014 to 2016. The Westlaw Next database was used to identify jury verdicts. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Complications were organized by type of filler used, location of injection, and severity. Intra-arterial injections without sequelae and those resulting in blindness or necrosis were considered severe complications. Factors raised during the litigation process were also analyzed.

resultsOf 1748 adverse events analyzed, most cases stemmed from cheek (751 [43.0%]) or lip (524 [30.0%]) injection. Commonly reported adverse events reported included swelling (755 [43.2%]) and infection (725 [41.5%]). Among FDA-reported complications, blindness was significantly associated with dorsal nasal injections (P < .001). Vascular compromise with and without sequela of dermal necrosis and blindness were significantly associated with Radiesse injections P < .001. Of the 9 malpractice cases identified, two-thirds involved allegations of inadequate informed consent, and the median award in cases resolved with payment was $262 000. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although specific complication profiles vary by material and injection site, common adverse events associated with injectable fillers include swelling and infection. More serious events include vascular compromise, resulting in necrosis and blindness; these events are also raised in cases involving litigation. This analysis illustrates the importance of outlining these risks in a comprehensive preoperative informed consent process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Indexed as

Cosmetic TechniquesCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualDermal FillersHumansMalpracticeRisk FactorsSkin AgingUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDermal Fillers

Identifiers

PMID29270603
PMCPMC6145786
OpenAlexW2781080382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.