Movement of the Syringe During Filler Aspiration: An Ultrasound Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspiration prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection is often taught as a safety maneuver to minimize the risk of intravascular injection; however, the validity of this technique in aesthetic practice is being increasingly challenged. One key assumption underpinning the validity of the aspiration test is that the needle tip does not move during the aspiration and subsequent injection of filler. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to visualize and measure needle tip movement in real time during aspiration and injection of filler. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of injector experience and double-handed versus single-handed aspiration technique in maintaining stability of the syringe. METHODS: Under real-time ultrasound visualization, 3 injectors with different levels of experience injected hyaluronic acid filler into pork belly tissue utilizing both double-handed and single-handed aspiration techniques. Needle tip movements were recorded and measured by means of ultrasound and video. RESULTS: The aspiration maneuver is in all cases associated with retrograde movement of the needle tip, ranging from 1.1 to 5.3 mm (mean, 2.9 mm), whereas injection leads to anterograde movement ranging from 0.6 to 4.1 mm (mean, 1.9 mm). Double-handed aspiration is associated with less needle tip movement than single-handed aspiration (P = 0.037). Greater experience is also associated less movement of the needle tip (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In all cases, the aspiration and injecting maneuver is associated with micromovements of the needle tip, of a magnitude consistently significant relative to the typical size of facial vessels. Although needle tip movement is only a single factor limiting the usefulness of the aspiration test, the results of this study suggest that it is not advisable to rely only on aspiration as a method to prevent intravascular injection.

Aspiration Before Tissue Filler-An Exercise in Futility and Unsafe Practice.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic physicians rely on certain anecdotal beliefs regarding the safe practice of filler injections. These include a presumed safety advantage of bolus injection after a negative aspiration. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to review and summarize the published literature on inadvertent intravascular injection of hyaluronic acid and to investigate whether the technique of aspiration confers any safety to the practitioner and the patient. METHODS: Pertinent literature was analyzed and the current understanding of the safety of negative and positive aspiration outlined. RESULTS: The available studies demonstrate that aspiration cannot be relied on and should not be employed as a safety measure. It is safer to adopt injection techniques that avoid injecting an intravascular volume with embolic potential than utilize an unreliable test to permit a risky injection. CONCLUSIONS: To prevent intravascular injection, understanding "injection anatomy" and injection plane and techniques such as slow, low-pressure injection are important safety measures. Assurance of safety when delivering a bolus after negative aspiration does not appear to be borne out by the available literature. If there is any doubt about the sensitivity or reliability of a negative aspiration, there is no role for its utilization. Achieving a positive aspiration would just defer the risk to the next injection location where a negative aspiration would then be relied on.

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. RESULTS: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.