Enhanced patient retention after combination vs single modality treatment using hyaluronic acid filler and neuromodulator: A multicenter, retrospective review by The Flame Group

Background It is believed that combination treatment with both neuromodulators (NM) and hyaluronic acid soft‐tissue fillers (HA) results in superior aesthetic results and increased patient satisfaction compared to either treatment alone. Aims To determine whether combined treatment with NM and HA le...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cosmetic dermatology 2021-05, Vol.20 (5), p.1495-1498
Main Authors: Humphrey, Shannon, de Almeida, Ada Trindade, Safa, Marva, Heydenrych, Izolda, Roberts, Stefania, Chantrey, Jonquille, Ogilvie, Patricia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
botulinum toxin
combination
Cosmetic Techniques
Dermal Fillers
Humans
Hyaluronic Acid
hyaluronic acid filler
neuromodulator
Neurotransmitter Agents
patient satisfaction
Retrospective Studies
Skin Aging
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background It is believed that combination treatment with both neuromodulators (NM) and hyaluronic acid soft‐tissue fillers (HA) results in superior aesthetic results and increased patient satisfaction compared to either treatment alone. Aims To determine whether combined treatment with NM and HA leads to greater patient retention than treatment with NM or HA alone. Patients/Methods This is a large, multi‐center, retrospective review of patient retention rates from 7 aesthetic practices across 5 continents, incorporating over 2600 patients. Patient retention is interpreted as a surrogate marker for overall patient satisfaction. Retention rates were compared at 1, 3, and 5 years for patients who received NM only, HA only, or combination treatment with both NM and HA. Results Combination therapy significantly increased the probability of retention for each time point (1, 3, and 5 years) compared with NM alone (P 
ISSN:1473-2130
1473-2165
DOI:10.1111/jocd.13856