Is ‘new’ the most dangerous word in the aesthetic’s industry? Product companies and less scrupulous practitioners compete to offer the latest, innovative cosmetic treatment in their quest to corner the market, but how is a patient able to decipher whether these procedures will work or, even more importantly, be safe.
At the least, these patients risk disappointment when the procedure fails to deliver on its claims, but sometimes they are gambling far more… their looks and even possibly their long-term health.
The scalpel versus the non-surgical
In recent years I have seen the rise of procedures which are deemed ‘minimally invasive’ and manufacturers and practitioners who provide these treatments argue their superiority to traditional surgical procedures, in terms of downtime and results.
Often, though, they are only suitable for a relatively narrow section of patients and many men and women would actually benefit far more from a surgical procedure, but because the practitioner is not qualified to perform cosmetic surgery, they offer the procedure regardless and patients are regularly left disappointed when expectations aren’t fulfilled.
More worrying than unfulfilled expectations though is when a product is launched to great fanfare, only to be speedily withdrawn after problems come to light. In the last five years, we’ve seen two injectable products hit the market – Macrolane for breast augmentation and Novabel for facial volumisation – that then had to be recalled by the product companies.
For my Leamington cosmetic surgery patients, I provide a number of non-surgical treatments, either as standalone procedures or as valuable adjuncts to a specific cosmetic surgery procedure, but I only offer treatments and products that I believe produce safe and effective results.
Tried and trusted products
Surgery is not always exempt from this drive for the new in terms of both product and procedure. In the late 1990s, Trilucent implants, which had a filling of soya bean oil, were offered to UK breast augmentation patients. The filling was less dense than silicone or saline so it was argued that they would interfere less with mammograms.
Within four years of these implants being on the market, the UK government was recommending that women have their Trilucent breast implants removed as a precautionary measure, due to concerns over the filling being possibly toxic.
Innovation is crucial but the job of the plastic surgeon is to balance this innovation with safety so it is not to the detriment of their patient.
In my Leamingon-based plastic surgery practice, I have always aimed to offer a choice of breast implant products that are safe and predictable and backed up by many years’ worth of clinical trials and safety checks, managing to avoid using any (cheap but unsafe) PIP implants on that basis, for instance. For more information on the surgical and non-surgical procedures I offer or to book a no-obligation assessment call my secretary Sally Bates on 01926 436341 to make an appointment.