Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the efficacy of lasers with other modalities in skin rejuvenation and resurfacing. Methodology: The database was thoroughly searched, and six articles meeting specific inclusion criteria were selected for meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria comprised studies that compared lasers with other methods, with four studies focusing on laser comparisons and two studies comparing more than two methods. The selected articles encompassed two randomized split-face trials, one side-by-side randomized clinical trial, and three comparative studies. The effectiveness of treatments was categorized as excellent, good, fair, poor, no change, or worsening. Article review and data extraction were conducted using Endnote X8, followed by analysis and categorization of the studies. RESULTS: The meta-analysis, involving six studies with 497 patients (mean age: 49.65 years), revealed an overall pooled prevalence of treatment effectiveness: 18% for "excellent," 31% for "good," 40% for "fair," 26% for "poor," and 14% for "no change." Erbium YAG laser exhibited superior results in the "excellent" category, with 20% displaying excellent responsiveness, and in the "good" category, 39% of radiofrequency cases treated with Erbium YAG laser demonstrated favorable results. Conversely, intense pulsed light showed better responsiveness in the "fair" group, with 39% of cases demonstrating fair results. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated a higher percentage of excellent responses compared to other skin rejuvenation treatments with Erbium YAG laser and the highest percentage of good responses with radiofrequency treatment. However, intense pulsed light treatment yielded superior results in the fair response group. Based on our findings, it is evident that utilizing Erbium YAG laser in conjunction with radiofrequency represents a secure approach that surpasses other methods in enhancing and restoring skin quality. Furthermore, a plausible suggestion is made that a combination of these two methods may introduce the most optimal approach for skin rejuvenation in the future.

A spatially referenced environmental exposure model for down-the-drain substance emissions was developed for Europe including the 27 European Union member states, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The model builds upon the global modeling framework that leverages the well-established iSTREEM model for the United States and further expands global coverage of the framework. The data is parameterized using European Union data on waste water treatment plants, locations, infrastructure, and global spatial datasets on population and river flow rates and routing. The model provides substance concentration distributions based on spatial variability of these parameters across Europe while taking into account river connectivity, chemical routing between rivers, and in-stream decay. Chemical-specific model inputs include wastewater treatment removals, in-stream decay rates, and emissions. The model is demonstrated for four case study chemicals that are used in consumer products with down-the-drain disposal routes: linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and alkyl sulfate are common surfactants used in laundry detergents, and oxybenzone and octinoxate are UV-filters used in personal care products. Monitoring data were collected to represent spatial variability across Europe as a comparison to modeled values. Modeled concentrations were found to be predictive while still being conservative, with 90th percentile modeled concentrations agreeing with monitored concentrations within a factor of 2-8 across the case study substances. We further demonstrate how the model can be applied in prospective safety assessments by comparing modeled concentrations to previously established predicted no-effect concentrations, and also demonstrate how the model is consistent with tiered risk assessment approaches when compared to the monitoring data assessments.

INTRODUCTION: Nonsurgical rhinofiller is increasingly used for aesthetic nasal reshaping, but little is known about its functional impact on nasal airflow. This study evaluates nasal airflow changes after rhinofiller using patient-reported outcome measures and objective rhinomanometry. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-one patients with mild nasal deviation, positive Cottle test, and no prior nasal surgery underwent rhinofiller with VYC-25. Patients completed FACE-Q and NOSE scale questionnaires preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Objective active anterior rhinomanometry was performed preoperatively and at 6 months. RESULTS: NOSE scale showed significant improvement from baseline to 6 months (mean reduction of 33.7 ± 9.4 points; p<0.05). FACE-Q nasal satisfaction module showed improvement by 21% (± 5%). Rhinomanometry demonstrated a 24% (± 4%) reduction in inspiratory pressure gradient at 100 Pa (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rhinofiller may provide both aesthetic enhancement and functional improvement in nasal airflow in selected patients. Patients should be informed that this is not a substitute for surgical septorhinoplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .