Medesthetics

JAN-FEB 2016

MedEsthetics—business education for medical practitioners—provides the latest noninvasive cosmetic procedures, treatment trends, product and equipment reviews, legal issues and medical aesthetics industry news.

Issue link: https://medesthetics.epubxp.com/i/618660

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 51 of 67

© GETTY IMAGES CUTTING EDGE SURGICAL AESTHETICS 50 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016 | Surgical Aesthetics Working With Cooperative Competitors Practices that are struggling to control their overhead and marketing costs may benefi t from working with a cooperative competitor, according to plastic surgeon Barry DiBernardo, MD. During a practice management pre- sentation at the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) in Boston, Dr. DiBernardo shared his experience working with another plastic surgeon located 15 miles away from his facility. The two doctors run joint marketing campaigns promoting their services to consum- ers in their region. The goal is to fi nd a surgeon you respect who is located close enough that you can run co- operative marketing campaigns, share mobile treatment devices and even share surgical staff members who travel between facilities, but far enough away that patients are unlikely to travel to the competing facility for care. Treatment for Implant-Related BIA-ALCL New research conducted by a team of investigators at MD Anderson Cancer Center and presented at the 2015 American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) conference in Boston shows that breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) can be reliably diagnosed and surgically treated. The study, "Characteristics and Treatment of Advanced Breast Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma," found that when implants are removed with a total capsulectomy, the majority of patients experienced a good prognosis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that breast implants have a reasonable assurance of safety and effi cacy, and has urged all physicians to report confi rmed BIA-ALCL cases. It has also collaborated with ASPS and The Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF) to form the Patient Registry and Outcomes For Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE) registry as a mechanism to prospec- tively track patients and outcomes. Incision sites treated with RXI-109, a self-delivering RNAi com- pound from biotechnology company RXi Pharmaceuticals, following scar revision surgery achieved better scores than control incision sites in the same subjects three months after scar revision surgery. In the fi rst two arms of the ongoing Phase 2a study, 15 subjects received six intradermal injections of RXI-109—eight received 5mg/cm and seven received 10mg/cm—beginning two weeks after scar revision surgery, with the last of the six doses administered three months after surgery. One portion of the revised scar was treated with RXI-109, while the rest of the scar was revised but left untreated. Subjects were assessed using four different evalua- tion methods: Physician and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), a blinded assessment of photographs of the revision sites, and a separate assessment of photographs of the revision sites by a blinded panel separate from the investigators. Overall, the RXI-109 treated revision sites scored statistically signifi cantly better than the untreated revision sites in all four three-month evaluations. Both dose levels of RXI-109 were equally well tolerated with occasional transient redness and itching occurring in both. The higher dose of 10mg/cm did not appear to add clinical benefi t over the 5mg/cm dose, leading to the conclusion that the next cohorts in this ongoing RXI-109- 1402 study will be treated with the lower dose. Subsequent cohorts will include evaluation of additional treatments through six months. RXI-109 Improves Scar Revision Surgery Outcomes

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Medesthetics - JAN-FEB 2016