Objectives: Non-medical practitioners performing aesthetic procedures have become a concerning issue, leading to various complications. This paper presents a case series detailing four instances of complications following plasma jet treatment administered by non-medical professionals in Uberlândia. The complications observed included keloids, ectropion, and persistent erythema among the patients. The primary objective of this report is to highlight the ethical and legal aspects surrounding aesthetic medicine and the ensuing legal implications when addressing such complications.
Introduction: Complications arising from non-medical practitioners in aesthetic procedures are increasing. This case series from Uberlândia-MG, can elucidating these cases, and we aim to raise awareness among patients regarding the risks associated with aesthetic procedures and provide guidance to medical professionals on appropriate management strategies. This study underscores the importance of patient education (period between iatrogenesis and seeking specialized care ranged from 20 days to 1 year) and the necessity for stringent regulations to ensure the safety and efficacy of aesthetic interventions.
Materials / method: Case 1 – A 44-year-old female patient, Fitzpatrick skin type IV, presented for medical consultation on the nineteenth day after undergoing laser treatment (plasma jet) at a non-medical facility. Dermatological examination: thinning of the lower eyelids, persistent erythema, bilateral eyelid retraction, two areas with thickened skin suggestive of hypertrophic scarring, mild cicatricial ectropion with separation of the eyelid margin from the globe, and inferior punctate keratopathy.
In 2023, I received three additional clinical cases of the same nature. The most severe was permanent ectropion.
Results: Case 1 was addressed from the outset, with follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including hyperbaric therapy, ophthalmological evaluation, and plastic surgery assessment: all opted for conservative treatment. Radiofrequency device was performed to assist with healing, and the patient initiated legal proceedings against the aesthetic team. We decided to await the conclusion of legal proceedings before proceeding with Nd:YAG laser treatment for persistent erythema. Of the other 3 cases, one received treatment with a radiofrequency device, Nd:YAG laser, and botulinum toxin for keloids.
Conclusion: In conclusion, legal medicine plays a pivotal role in addressing permanent deformities resulting from aesthetic procedures. Dermatologists must cautiously navigate such cases, considering the ethical, legal, and clinical implications. Additionally, accepting cases of complications from non-medical practitioners carries legal and ethical risks. However, safe and conservative treatments are available, including laser therapy and botulinum toxin, administered by qualified medical professionals. It is imperative to prioritize patient safety and well-being while navigating these complex situations.
利益冲突声明
您有否接受任何资金来支持研究这个主题?
否
您是否接受过关于这项研究的任何酬金或其他报酬?
否
你是否和任何与您的研究所涉及的药物,材料或工具有密切联系的实体存在财务关系?
否
你是否拥有或者您已经为您此研究中的工具,药物或材料申请任何专利?
否
这项工作没有任何直接或间接的资金支持。由作者自己承担责任。