Retention Rates Among Patients Undergoing Multimodal Facial Rejuvenation Treatment Versus a Single Monotherapy in Cosmetic Dermatology Practices.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Canada
Combined Modality Therapy
/ methods
Cosmetic Techniques
/ statistics & numerical data
Dermal Fillers
/ administration & dosage
Face
/ physiology
Female
Germany
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Satisfaction
Rejuvenation
Retention in Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Skin Aging
/ drug effects
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
/ statistics & numerical data
Treatment Outcome
United States
Young Adult
Journal
Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]
ISSN: 1524-4725
Titre abrégé: Dermatol Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9504371
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
28
8
2019
medline:
10
7
2020
entrez:
28
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Facial aging is a multifactorial process. Accordingly, expert opinion has largely been unanimous in that multimodal treatment targeting various aspects of the aging face provides superior results. However, there is a lack of studies exploring patient response. To compare patient retention between triple multimodal facial rejuvenation treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy) and monotherapy (neuromodulator alone). A retrospective, multicenter (the United States, Canada, and Germany) study was performed. Cases were retrieved from July 2015 to June 2016. The study compared patients who had undergone monotherapy (neuromodulator), combined multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy on the same day), and sequential multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy over a 1-year period). Retention rates were calculated. A total of 509 patients were included: monotherapy (300), sequential multimodal treatment (93), and combined multimodal treatment (116). Patient retention was significantly higher in the combined multimodal treatment group compared with the monotherapy and sequential multimodal treatment groups (p < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar trends at all sites. Based on retention rates, patients are more likely to return to the clinic when multiple treatment modalities are used during 1 encounter. These data further solidify the importance of multimodal therapy for both the provider and the patient.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Facial aging is a multifactorial process. Accordingly, expert opinion has largely been unanimous in that multimodal treatment targeting various aspects of the aging face provides superior results. However, there is a lack of studies exploring patient response.
OBJECTIVE
To compare patient retention between triple multimodal facial rejuvenation treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy) and monotherapy (neuromodulator alone).
METHODS
A retrospective, multicenter (the United States, Canada, and Germany) study was performed. Cases were retrieved from July 2015 to June 2016. The study compared patients who had undergone monotherapy (neuromodulator), combined multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy on the same day), and sequential multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy over a 1-year period). Retention rates were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 509 patients were included: monotherapy (300), sequential multimodal treatment (93), and combined multimodal treatment (116). Patient retention was significantly higher in the combined multimodal treatment group compared with the monotherapy and sequential multimodal treatment groups (p < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar trends at all sites.
CONCLUSION
Based on retention rates, patients are more likely to return to the clinic when multiple treatment modalities are used during 1 encounter. These data further solidify the importance of multimodal therapy for both the provider and the patient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31453910
doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000002086
pii: 00042728-202002000-00012
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dermal Fillers
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
240-246Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Tigges J, Krutmann J, Fritsche E, Haendeler J, et al. The hallmarks of fibroblast ageing. Mech Ageing Dev 2014;138:26–44.
Carruthers J, Burgess C, Day D, Fabi SG, et al. Consensus recommendations for combined aesthetic interventions in the face using botulinum toxin, fillers, and energy-based devices. Dermatol Surg 2016;42:586–97.
Coleman SR, Grover R. The anatomy of the aging face: volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topography. Aesthet Surg J 2006;26(Suppl 1):S4–9.
Fisher GJ, Varani J, Voorhees JJ. Looking older: fibroblast collapse and therapeutic implications. Arch Dermatol 2008;144:666–72.
Quan T, Little E, Quan H, Qin Z, et al. Elevated matrix metalloproteinases and collagen fragmentation in photodamaged human skin: impact of altered extracellular matrix microenvironment on dermal fibroblast function. J Invest Dermatol 2013;133:1362–6.
Farage MA, Miller KW, Elsner P, Maibach HI. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in skin ageing: a review. Int J Cosmet Sci 2008;30:87–95.
Fabi SG, Carruthers J. Single modality approach to rejuvenate the aging face and body: a thing of the past? Dermatol Surg 2016;42:S73–6.
Cuerda-Galindo E, Palomar-Gallego MA, Linares-Garcíavaldecasas R. Are combined same-day treatments the future for photorejuvenation? Review of the literature on combined treatments with lasers, intense pulsed light, radiofrequency, botulinum toxin and fillers for rejuvenation. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2015;17:49–54.
Alam M, Levy R, Pajvani U, Ramierez JA, et al. Safety of radiofrequency treatment over human skin previously injected with medium-term injectable soft-tissue augmentation materials: a controlled pilot trial. Lasers Surg Med 2006;38:205–10.
Goldman MP, Alster TS, Weiss R. A randomized trial to determine the infl uence of laser therapy, monopolar radiofrequency treatment, and intense pulsed light therapy administered immediately after hyaluronic acid gel implantation. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:535–42.
Fabi SG, Goldman MP. The safety and efficacy of combining poly-L-lactic acid with intense pulsed light in facial rejuvenation: a retrospective study of 90 patients. Dermatol Surg 2012;38:1208–16.
Semchyshyn NL, Kilmer SL. Does laser inactivate botulinum toxin? Dermatol Surg 2005;31:399–404.
Khoury JG, Saluja R, Goldman MP. The effect of botulinum toxin type A on full-face intense pulsed light treatment: a randomized, double-blind, split-face study. Dermatol Surg 2008;34:1062–9.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2014 plastic surgery statistics report. 2015. Available from: www.plasticsurgery.org. Accessed June 1, 2018.
Molina B, Grangier Y, Mole B, Ribe N, et al. Patient satisfaction after the treatment of glabellar lines with Botulinum toxin type A (Speywood Unit): a multi-centre European observational study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015;29:1382–8.
Carruthers J, Carruthers A, Monheit GD, Davis PG. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of OnabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/mL smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation: satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes. Dermatol Surg 2010;36:2135–45.
Clarke RN. Measuring patient loss. J Med Pract Manag 2002;17:183–6.
DeSouza G. Designing a customer retention plan. J Business Strategy 1992;13:24–8.
Allergan Corporation. Allergan 2003 Annual Report; 2003. Available from: http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/a/NYSE_AGN_2003.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2019.
White L, Tanzi EL, Alster TS. Improving patient retention after botulinum toxin type A treatment. Dermatol Surg 2006;32:212–5.
Bosniak S. Combination therapies: a nonsurgical approach to oculofacial rejuvenation. Ophthalmol Clin 2005;18:215–25.
Shamban AT. Combination hand rejuvenation procedures. Aesthet Surg J 2009;29:409–13.
Hart D, Fabi SG, White M, Fitzgerald B, et al. Current Concepts in the use of PLLA: clinical Synergy noted with combined use of HFUS and PLLA on face and decollete. Plast Rec Surg 2015;136(5 Suppl):180S–7S.
Dayan S. Combination therapies: a personal perspective on the practice building benefits. Dermatol Surg 2016;42:S165–7.