Table 1.
Summary of advantages and disadvantages of procedures/products used to create volume in the body
| Intervention | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Autologous procedures | ||
| Injectable fat | Potential for lasting durability | Unpredictability of cosmetic results |
| Versatile (can be used for a wide variety of indications) | Unpredictability of fat survival | |
| Can be used in combination with liposuction to sculpt body | Donor site morbidity | |
| Filler completely biocompatible | Time consuming process | |
| Potential to regenerate surrounding tissues | ||
| Segmental fat transfer | Long-lasting graft survival | Requires appropriate donor site, so not suitable for many indications |
| Donor site subject to considerable morbidity and scarring | ||
| Time-consuming, complex procedure | ||
| Requires general anaesthesia | ||
| Extensive downtime | ||
| Costly | ||
| Flap surgery | Long-lasting graft survival | Requires appropriate donor site, so not suitable for many indications |
| Donor site subject to considerable morbidity and scarring | ||
| Time-consuming, complex procedure | ||
| Requires general anaesthesia | ||
| Extensive downtime | ||
| Costly | ||
| Allogeneous procedures | ||
| Silicone implants | Very long-lasting correction | Risk of rupture and other serious side effects |
| No donor site required | Not suitable to correct small concavities | |
| Can be used to create substantial volume | More downtime required compared with minimally invasive procedures | |
| Less downtime involved compared with flap surgery | More costly than minimally invasive procedures | |
| Less complex and time-consuming compared with flap surgery | ||
| Injectable silicone | Long-lasting correction | Questionable long-term safety |
| Requires no donor site | Little empirical evidence regarding safety and efficacy in the peer-reviewed literature | |
| Minimally invasive: little downtime, use of general anaesthetic not required, can be carried out in an office environment, quick, relatively inexpensive | Cannot be used to create larger volumes in the body | |
| Polyalkylimide gel | Long-lasting correction | Questionable long-term safety |
| Requires no donor site | Little empirical evidence regarding safety and efficacy in the peer-reviewed literature | |
| Minimally invasive: little downtime, use of general anaesthetic not required, can be carried out in an office environment, quick, relatively inexpensive | ||
| Versatile | ||
| Polyacrylamide gel | Long-lasting correction | Questionable long-term safety |
| Requires no donor site | Little empirical evidence regarding safety and efficacy in the peer-reviewed literature | |
| Minimally invasive: little downtime, use of general anaesthetic not required, can be carried out in an office environment, quick, relatively inexpensive | ||
| Versatile | ||
| Macrolane™ VRF | Requires no donor site | Correction is not permanent |
| Minimally invasive: little downtime, use of general anaesthetic not required, can be carried out in an office environment, quick, relatively inexpensive | ||
| NASHA™ gels used in facial rejuvenation associated with a solid safety record | ||
| Versatile | ||