Hargiss, John Blade

AbstractBackgroundWith an increasing demand of aesthetic soft‐tissue filler treatments, the occurrence of adverse events rises likewise. An optimized injection algorithm adapted to product characteristics (eg, rheology) of the soft‐tissue filler is crucial in order to ensure satisfying clinical outcomes and high patient safety.ObjectiveTo identify a subjective feedback mechanism for the avoidance of adverse events after soft‐tissue filler injection procedures.MethodsA retrospective data analysis of n = 387 aesthetic treatments performed on n = 291 patients (4 males, 287 females) with different soft‐tissue fillers with regard to loss of volume (filling effect), injected layer, injectability (“ease of injection”), injected volume, and injection technique was conducted.ResultsThe subjectively perceived injectability during the injection process was statistically significantly related to G‐Prime value with rs = 0.101 with p = 0.048, indicating an increased difficulty while injecting products with higher G‐Prime. The occurrence of adverse events was also statistically significantly related to the injectability: injections with increased subjectively perceived difficulty showed increasing odds of developing adverse events by OR 0.157 with p = 0.002.ConclusionInjections that were subjectively more difficult to perform are more likely to develop adverse events. Respecting the layered arrangement of the face, the recommended and approved depth and facial region for each specific treatment enable practitioners to achieve satisfying outcomes while keeping the rate of adverse events low.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent options for the reduction of acne scarring (eg, ablative laser resurfacing) are associated with considerable side effects and limitations in terms of patient population. Percutaneous collagen induction via microneedling poses an alternative treatment method due to its low rates of reported adverse events and side effects.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and effectiveness of microneedling treatments in reducing acne scars.MethodsA total of 22 patients (18 females and 4 males) with a mean age of 38 ± 7.6 years were assessed regarding the appearance of facial acne scarring. Acne scars were assessed via the Acne Scar Assessment Scale (ASAS) and the Goodman and Baron acne scar grading scale before and after two/three treatments. Additionally, the post‐interventional development of side reactions, adverse events, and patient‐reported outcomes (eg, pain/discomfort, skin redness) was reported.ResultsCompared to baseline, the mean ASAS value was improved statistically significantly on average by 1.41 and 1.46 after the second treatment as assessed by the independent raters and the patients, respectively. In patients who received a total of three treatments, a statistically significant mean improvement in ASAS value of 1.35 and 1.66 compared to baseline was assessed by the independent raters and patients, respectively. No unexpected adverse events were reported. The severity and rate of side reactions decreased over the course of this study.ConclusionMicroneedling treatments can pose a safe and effective option in the reduction of acne scarring. In this study, microneedling helped achieving a significant reduction of acne scars while showing high patient safety.

Objectives: Health literacy is an individual’s capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. Failure to understand and correctly execute a plan of care often leads to poor health outcomes. Determining patient health literacy allows health care providers to tailor their plan of care instructions, increasing the probability of understanding, and adherence. Several validated health literacy tests have been developed to assess the health literacy of individuals and ethnic groups. However, because a proctor is required to administer these tests, their usefulness in clinical settings is limited. The issue of health literacy is especially relevant within minority groups. This research focused on producing a translatable assessment that can be administered quickly without a proctor. Methods: We developed a 15-question instrument (the RIHLA) in English using the Delphi method with a panel of bilingual experts and translated it into Spanish. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for 3 groups: Native English-speaking College students (NESC), Native English-speaking patients (NES), and Limited English Proficient Spanish-speaking patients (LEP). External validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to compare our instrument to a previously validated, proctored instrument measuring health literacy (the SAHL-E). Results: Four hundred fifteen subjects completed the RIHLA. Of these, 192 (46.3%) were NESC, 208 (50.1%) were NES, and 15 (3.6%) were LEP. The mean number of correct answers was 11.2, 11.6, and 8.3 respectively with the LEP group scoring lower ( P < .01). Cronbach’s alpha was >.70 for each group. Moderate correlation between the RIHLA and the previously validated instrument was present ( P < .01) with Pearson’s r = .47 (95% CI: 0.18-0.69). Conclusion: The RIHLA is a non-proctored assessment tool that may provide a measure of patients’ health literacy in multiple languages. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability, validity, and generalizability to a wider population.