Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 464–471 | Cite as

Adverse reactions following injection with a permanent facial filler polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid): causes and treatment

  • Lise Christensen
  • Vibeke Breiting
  • Jens Vuust
  • Estrid Hogdall
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid), an atoxic non-immunogenic gel of the non-resorbable type, has gained widespread popularity as an injectable filler for facial augmentation. However, adverse events (AEs) have occurred, the nature of which seems obscure because of negative findings on culture and a pattern of foreign-body response on microscopy.

Design

This is a prospective study of case reports provided by physicians injecting Aquamid during the period 21 May 2001 to 15 September 2003.

Materials

Among 40,000 persons injected, 55 were reported to have experienced AEs. Information from questionnaires distributed along with the product and follow-up information from involved physicians was collected into a database.

Results

AEs occurring mainly in lips and nasolabial folds were reported in 55 patients, with 51 requiring treatment. The time from the last gel injection to the debut of the AE varied from 2 to 364 days, with a median of 12 days. Seventeen patients presented with different types of reaction to the injection, and the exact cause of the AE was established in another 19. A complete follow-up until full recovery was available in only 43 cases (84%). A broad-spectrum antibiotic in high dosage was effective for a short time. Steroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) tended to aggravate symptoms and to prolong treatment time.

Conclusions

AEs presenting clinically as nodules or swellings later than 1 week and less than 1 year after the injection of polyacrylamide hydrogel (Aquamid) should be treated immediately with a broad-spectrum antibiotic (quinolone) in high dosage. Steroids or NSAIDs are contraindicated.

Keywords

Adverse event Inflammation Polyacrylamide hydrogel Facial filler Worldwide DNA sequencing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Ieva Ankorina-Stark, M.Sc., Ph.D. and Professor Henrik Enghusen Poulsen, M.D., Ph.D., are gratefully acknowledged for valuable comments and recommendations.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen O (1992) Response to subdermal implantation of textured microimplants in humans. Aesthetic Plast Surg 16:227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergeret-Galley C, Latouche X, Illouz Y-G (2001) The value of a new filler material in corrective and cosmetic surgery: DermaLive and DermaDeep. Aesthetic Plast Surg 25:249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bollen L (2000) Intracutaneous test in the rabbit. Scantox, Denmark (Lab. No. 40771)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boye K, Hogdall E, Borre M (1999) Identification of bacteria using two degenerate 16S rDNA sequencing primers. Microbiol Res 154:23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breiting V, Aasted A, Jørgensen A, Opitz P, Rosetzsky A (2004) A study on patients treated with polyacrylamide hydrogel injection for facial corrections. Aesthetic Plast Surg 28:45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen LC, Breiting VB, Aasted A, Jørgensen A, Kebuladze I (2003) Long term effects of polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG, Interfall/Contura SA) in human breast tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:1883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duranti F, Salti G, Bovani B (1998) Injectable hyaluronic acid for soft tissue augmentation: a clinical and histological study. Dermatol Surg 24:1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ersek RA, Beisang AA (1991) Bioplastique: a new textured copolymer microparticle promotes permanence in soft tissue augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 33:693Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hennekes R, Garus HJ (1989) Orbitale spätkomplikationen nach subkutaner silikoninjektion. Fortschr Ophthalmol 86:249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lemperle G, Gauthier-Hazan N, Lemperle M (1998) PMMA microspheres (Artecol) for long lasting correction of wrinkles: Part III. Refinements and statistics. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2:356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lemperle G, Romano JJ, Busso M (2003) Soft tissue augmentation with Artecol I: 10-year history, indications, technique and complications. Dermatol Surg 29:573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lupton JR, Alster TS (2000) Cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction to injectable hyaluronic acid. Dermatol Surg 26:135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maas CS, Papel ID, Greene D, Stoker DA (1997) Complications of injectable synthetic polymers in facial augmentation. Dermatol Surg 23:871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCollister DD, Hake CL, Sadek SE, Rowe VK (1965) Toxicological investigations of polyacrylamides. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 7:639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mendez-Eastman SK (2003) BOTOX: a review. Plast Surg Nurs 23:64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Netscher DT, Weizer G, Wigoda P, Walker LE, Thornby J, Bowen D (1995) Clinical relevance of positive breast periprosthetic cultures without overt infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearl RM, Laub DR, Kaplan EN (1978) Complications following silicone injections for augmentation of the contour of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 61:888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rapaport MJ, Vinnik C, Zarem H (1996) Injectable silicone: cause of facial nodules, cellulites, ulceration and migration. Aesthetic Plast Surg 20:267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Requena C, Izquierdo MJ, Navarro M, Martinez A, Vilata JJ, Botella R, Amorrortu J, Sabater V, Aliaga A, Requena L (2001) Adverse reactions to injectable aesthetic microimplants. Am J Dermatol 23:197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudolph CM, Soyer P, Schuller-Petrovic S, Kerl H (1999) Foreign body granulomas due to injectable aesthetic microimplants. Am J Surg Pathol 23:113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith EA, Oehma FW (1991) Acrylamide and polyacrylamide: a review of production, use, environmental fate and neurotoxicity. Rev Environ Health 9:215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stegman SJ, Chu S, Armstrong RC (1998) Adverse reactions to bovine collagen implant: clinical and histologic features. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 14(Suppl 1):39Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Travis WD, Balough K, Abraham JL (1985) Silicone granulomas: report of three cases and review of the literature. Hum Pathol 16:19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Virden CP, Dobke MK, Stein P (1992) Subclinical infection of the silicone breast implant surface as a possible cause of capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg 16:173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Webster RC, Fuleihan NS, Hamdan US, Fuleihan NS, Giandello PR, Smith RC (1986) Injectable silicone: report of 17,000 facial treatments since 1962. Am J Cosmet Surg 3:41Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilkie TF (1977) Late development of granuloma after liquid silicone injections. Plast Reconstr Surg 60:179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Christensen
    • 1
    • 5
  • Vibeke Breiting
    • 2
  • Jens Vuust
    • 3
  • Estrid Hogdall
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Pathology, RigshospitaletUniversity Hospital of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Holte Clinic of Plastic SurgeryHolteDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Clinical BiochemistryStatens Serum InstituteCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Virus, Hormones and CancerDanish Cancer SocietyCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Department of PathologyBispebjerg HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations