C M Rudolph1, H P Soyer, S Schuller-Petrovic
1Department of Dermatology, University of Graz, Austria.
This study describes two types of granulomas caused by injectable aesthetic microimplants. The implants, Bioplastique and Artecoll, were used to correct facial contour abnormalities. Five patients were examined, all of whom were women with an average age of 45. Histopathologic analysis revealed distinct patterns in granuloma formation. Bioplastique granulomas had irregular cystic spaces with jagged foreign bodies. Artecoll granulomas showed uniform round vacuoles with spherical foreign bodies. These findings enabled accurate diagnosis even with limited clinical information. The study highlights the importance of histopathology in diagnosing implant-related complications.
You might also read
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
Area of Science:
Background:
Injectable aesthetic microimplants are used to correct facial contour abnormalities. Prior research has shown that these implants can lead to adverse reactions. However, the specific histopathologic features of complications remain unclear. No prior work had resolved the diagnostic challenges posed by these implants. This gap motivated a closer examination of clinical and histopathologic data. Establishing diagnostic criteria is essential for proper patient management. The lack of detailed case reports hinders accurate diagnosis. This paper contributes by describing distinct granuloma patterns.
Purpose Of The Study:
The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and histopathologic features of granulomas caused by specific injectable microimplants. The authors sought to differentiate between Bioplastique and Artecoll-related granulomas. They aimed to clarify diagnostic markers for these implants. The motivation stemmed from the need for precise diagnostic criteria. Clinical presentation alone is insufficient for diagnosis. Histopathology provides critical diagnostic value. The study focused on five patients with implant-related complications. The goal was to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient care.
Bioplastique granulomas have irregular, jagged foreign bodies in cystic spaces. Artecoll granulomas show uniform, round vacuoles with spherical foreign bodies.
Clinical presentation alone is insufficient. Histopathology reveals specific foreign body shapes and cystic structures for accurate diagnosis.
Nonbirefringent foreign bodies are a key histopathologic feature. They help distinguish these granulomas from other types of implant reactions.
The study included five patients. Two had Bioplastique granulomas and three had Artecoll granulomas.
Main Methods:
The researchers conducted a case series analysis of five patients treated with Bioplastique or Artecoll. Clinical and histopathologic data were collected and compared. Tissue samples were examined for granuloma characteristics. The study focused on cystic space morphology and foreign body shape. No experimental models were used. The approach was retrospective and descriptive. Patient demographics and implant types were recorded. Histopathologic findings were analyzed for diagnostic specificity.
Main Results:
Five patients with implant-related granulomas were examined. Two cases involved Bioplastique and three involved Artecoll. Histopathology revealed distinct cystic structures. Bioplastique cases showed irregular, jagged foreign bodies. Artecoll cases displayed uniform, round vacuoles. Foreign bodies in both cases were translucent and nonbirefringent. These findings enabled accurate diagnosis despite limited clinical data. The study confirmed the diagnostic value of histopathologic features.
Conclusions:
The authors concluded that distinct histopathologic features can diagnose implant-related granulomas. Bioplastique granulomas exhibit irregular cystic spaces with jagged foreign bodies. Artecoll granulomas contain uniform, round vacuoles with spherical foreign bodies. These findings were based on five patient cases. The study supports the use of histopathology for diagnosis. Clinical presentation alone is insufficient for accurate diagnosis. The results suggest a need for histopathologic evaluation in similar cases. These conclusions align with the observed histopathologic patterns.
The mean age was 45 years. The age range was 24 to 72 years, with all patients being women.
Unsatisfactory cosmetic effects led to excision in four patients. One patient had partial excision during another cosmetic procedure.