Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

Decades of Scientific Data and Global Media Reporting on Complications in Non-surgical Aesthetic Treatments for a Transparent Safety Profile: Kissing Snow White Awake.

Rahman E., Rao P., Sayed K., Garcia PE., Ioannidis S., Yu N.

Laboratory Study on Face & Skin, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
40593115
DOI
10.1007/s00266-025-05007-3
NCT
NCT02818556
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Non-surgical aesthetic treatments (NSATs) have gained significant traction over the past two decades, prized for their minimally invasive nature, cost-effectiveness, and rapid outcomes. Yet complications associated with these procedures remain underreported, inadequately studied, and inconsistently regulated, compromising patient safety. Methodology This mixed-methods study synthesised global data from 457 peer-reviewed studies, 37,250 media articles, 2.28 million social media posts, and regulatory databases, encompassing 231,475 documented complications. Statistical methodologies, including Cox proportional hazards models, Bayesian hierarchical modelling, and geospatial mapping, were employed to evaluate risk trends. Machine learning algorithms forecasted emerging risks, while sensitivity analyses addressed potential data biases. Results Dermal fillers accounted for 42% of complications, chiefly granulomas, vascular occlusions, and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Botulinum toxin A contributed 15% of cases, predominantly mild adverse effects such as headache, ptosis, and bruising. Thread lift procedures were marred by frequent extrusion and infection rates. The safest products were identified as Prabotulinumtoxin A, Juvéderm high-viscosity fillers, Profhilo, APTOS Light Lift, microneedling radiofrequency devices, Ultherapy, and EMFACE, each demonstrating > 85%

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansCosmetic TechniquesDermal FillersRisk AssessmentPatient SafetyBayes TheoremFemale

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research