• Like
Dr. Patrick Treacy lecture on Radiesse to IMCAS 2008
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Dr. Patrick Treacy lecture on Radiesse to IMCAS 2008

  • 1,897 views
Published

Lecture about the benefits of the dermal implant Radiesse given at IMCAS Paris 2008 by Dr. Patrick Treacy. Learm more at http://www.ailesburyclinic.ie/

Lecture about the benefits of the dermal implant Radiesse given at IMCAS Paris 2008 by Dr. Patrick Treacy. Learm more at http://www.ailesburyclinic.ie/

Published in Health & Medicine , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • ','x;. cv'\m.;g
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,897
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
39
Comments
1
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Clinical Research Data vs. vs.
  • 2. Medical Disclosure
    • Dr. Patrick J. Treacy is a Cosmetic Dermatologist presently on the Specialist Register in Ireland
    • I have purchased my own Radiesse product in Ailesbury Clinic.
    • I have no financial interest or stock in BioForm nor do I receive any additional remuneration or other compensation for product bought by you as a result of your attendance at this IMAS lecture .
  • 3. Multi-Centre Research Data vs. vs.
    • Multi Centre
    • Randomised
    • Blinded
    • Comparative Study
    Results published in the Dec 2007 Journal of Dermatological Surgery
  • 4. Comparative Study Radiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV (N=205)
    • Comparison of efficacy, durability, and patient satisfaction variables
    • Treatment of Nasolabial Folds
      • Month 0 and 4.
    • Results at 4, 8, and 12 month post 2 nd injection
  • 5. Head to Head Studies
    • Radiesse vs. Restylane Trial Design (2 sites)
      • Split face study, n=60
      • GAIS, WSRS, and Injection Volume
      • Live Blinded Evaluator and patient satisfaction questionnaires
    • Radiesse vs. Juvederm & Perlane Trial Design (5 sites)
      • Patients randomized to one of three treatments (both NL-folds), n=205
      • GAIS, WSRS, and Injection Volume
      • Live Blinded Evaluator and patient satisfaction questionnaires
    6 Months 9 Months 3 Months 0 Months 12 Months 8 Months 4 Months 0 Months
  • 6. Results after 1 st treatment Less volume
  • 7. vs Restylane
  • 8. vs Restylane
  • 9. Comparative Study: Radiesse vs Restylane GAIS 3 Months 6 Months 9 Months 79% 44% More Patients improved with Radiesse than with Restylane Time post 2nd Injection % of Patients Improved or better (n=60 Split Face)
  • 10. WSRS = Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale 5 Extreme Extremely deep and long folds, detrimental to facial appearance. 2-4mm Visible V-shaped fold when stretched Unlikely to have satisfactory correction with injectable implant alone. 4 Severe Very long and deep folds; prominent facial feature. Less than 2mm visible fold when stretched. Significant improvement is expected from injectable implant. 3 Moderate Moderately deep folds. Clear facial feature visible at normal appearance but not when stretched. Excellent correction is expected from injectable implant. 2 Mild Shallow but visible fold with a slight indentation; minor facial feature. Implant is expected to produce a slight improvement in appearance. 1 Absent No visible fold, continuous skin line. 1 5 4 3 2
  • 11. GAIS = Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale Very Much Improved Optimal cosmetic result for the implant in this patient. Much Improved Marked improvement in appearance but not completely optimal for this patient. A touch-up would slightly improve the result. Improved Obvious improvement in appearance from the initial condition, but a touch-up or re-treatment is indicated. No Change The appearance is essentially the same as the original condition. Worse The appearance is worse than the original condition.
  • 12. Comparative Study Radiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV (N=205)
    • Comparison of efficacy, durability, and patient satisfaction variables
    • Treatment of Nasolabial Folds
      • Month 0 and 4.
    • Results at 4, 8, and 12 month post 2 nd injection
  • 13. Comparative Study Radiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV GAIS 4 Months 8 Months 12 Months More Patients improved with Radiesse than with Perlane & Juvederm Time post 2nd Injection 62% 50% 48% 88% 53% 64% % of Patients Improved or better (n=205)
  • 14. One fold (split face) (touch up at 3 Months) Both folds (touch up at 4 Months) Radiesse 0.89 Restylane 1.26 Radiesse 2.21 Perlane 2.89 Juvederm HV 2.94 cc - including touch up Volume Comparison Syringes needed for 2 Folds Full Correction 1.4 2.5 1.7 2.9 3.7 % of Optimal Correction w/ One Syringe 70% 40% 60% 34% 27%
  • 15.
    • More patients were Satisfied with Radiesse than with Restylane , even at 6 Months
    Comparative Study: Radiesse vs Restylane Patient Satisfaction Time post 2nd Injection % of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied* Radiesse Restylane
  • 16. Comparative Study Radiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV Patient Satisfaction More patients were Satisfied with Radiesse than with Perlane or Juvederm Time post 2nd Injection % of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied
  • 17. Comparative Study: Radiesse vs Restylane Patients likely to return % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments Patients are 3 times more likely to return for re-treatments with Radiesse Time post 2nd Injection Radiesse Restylane
  • 18. Comparative Study Radiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV Patients likely to return Patients are much more likely to come in for re-treatments with Radiesse Time post 2nd Injection % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments
  • 19.
    • Radiesse treated patients are more satisfied compared to hyaluronic acid treated patients
    • Radiesse delivers better correction at 3 months & beyond
    • Radiesse delivers longer-lasting correction
    • Radiesse requires less volume to achieve the same immediate correction
    • Radiesse patients are more likely to return for future treatments
    Comparative Studies with Radiesse SUMMAY FINDINGS
  • 20. Acknowledgements and Participating Centers Marion Moers-Carpi , Munich, Germany Stephan Vogt , Hanover, Germany Jaime Opi Tufet , Barcelona, Spain Begonia Martinez Santos , Barcelona, Spain Jorge Planas , Barcelona, Spain Sonia Rovira Vallve , Barcelona, Spain
  • 21. Calcium Hydroxylapatite Gel carrier (~70%) Sodium-CarboxyMethylCellulose Glycerine H 2 O
    • Structural component (~30%)
      • Ca 2+ PO 4 3- ions
      • (Ca 10 (PO 4 ) 6 (OH) 2 )
      • Natural mineral
      • (identical to teeth & bone)
  • 22. Calcium Hydroxylapatite Macrophages dissolve gel carrier & fibroblasts form new collagen. Natural mineral non-antigenic, non-irritant, non-toxic metabolizes via homeostatic mechanisms
  • 23. Facial Augmentation Nasolabial Fold Mental crease Jaw Line Chin Post-rhinoplasty Marionette Line Cheek Malar Radial Lip Lines
  • 24.