The FDA is starting to clamp down on spas and clinics that offer lipodisollve or mesotherapy, an injectable treatment for cellulite.

Mesotherapy – also called lipolysis, lipozap, lipotherapy, or lipodissolve – is unregulated and there are no standard procedures. Mesotherapy uses a cocktail of fat cell busting medications, vitamins and plant extracts. No two doctors will necessarily administer the same cocktail. Some seem to use an emphysema drug called aminophylline. It is used in mesotherapy as it is proven to help improve blood flow in patients with respiratory problems and the hope is that it will do the same with those who have cellulite. One study in 1999 suggested that there is no evidence that aminophylline works.

Other practitioners use a couple of biological detergents (one comes from cow bile) that are known fat cell busters. One of them, phosphatidylcholine is a licensed drug in Germany for treating blood vessel blockages. It is not licensed for cosmetic surgery. Phosphatydlcholine is one drug used in mesotherapy that the FDA actively lobbies against, because it is a drug that the FDA is able to regulate and is not approved by the administration for any sort of use. Despite this, it is still a very popular component in many mesotherapy kits, sold under the name Lipostabil. It is also commonly abbreviated as PC or PPC.

Yohimbine is a commonly used drug approved by the FDA, but not for mesotherapy. It was actually originally used to treat erectile dysfunction. It works in a manner similar to aminophylline, as it causes vasodilation, thus increasing blood flow. It is believed that increased blood flow reduces fluid retention, and reduced fluid retention can possibly lead to less cellulite.

The FDA is warning consumers that:

• It has not evaluated or approved products for use in lipodissolve
• It is not aware of evidence supporting the effectiveness of the substances used in lipodissolve for fat elimination
• The safety of these substances, when used alone or in combination, is unknown
• It is not aware of clinical studies to support medical uses of lipodissolve
• In addition, FDA has reports of unexpected side effects in people who’ve undergone the lipodissolve procedure. These side effects include
• Permanent scarring
• Skin deformation
• Deep, painful knots under the skin in areas where the lipodissolve treatments were injected

No related posts.

by Linda of SheSez.com

I tried the popular Nu Skin Galvanic Spa last summer and, quite frankly, was surprised at the instant results. The system was effective at essentially lifting the little folds around my nose and smoothing lines around my eyes and forehead. So, when I was invited to try the new version of the hand-held device (on sale in the TIA shop for $343)) and to sample their latest product, a serum derived from soy technology, my curiosity was piqued.

I bought the Nu Skin Serum in May. It cost $157 for 1 fluid ounce. With shipping, it came to $178. Ouch! This is way more than I typically spend for skin care products. Suffice to say, my expectations were high.

I used it, as directed, morning and night. And, I cut out all my other skin care products, using just the serum for 45 days.  After about a month, I started to notice a difference. The fine lines around my eyes seemed a bit smoother and smaller and, all in all, the texture of my skin seemed to improve.  The pores appeared smaller and the color or tone of my skin evened out.  In fact, taking a look at my face after 45 days of use, there’s not even a hint of blotchiness.  Before, on occasion, my skin would get red or ruddy areas on my cheeks and sometimes my chin.  The bottle is almost empty, so I’d say, at the most, this single fluid ounce will last 2 months. Bottom line: the serum is pricey, but if you can afford it, I believe it’s a great product, and a cut above most others in that price range.

At SheSez.com, you can see a video of Linda’s how to have a Nu Skin treatment. Browse Nu Skin and AgeLOC in the TIA shop.

No related posts.

Yesterday I attended a presentation about a new, non-invasive “skin lifting” treatment called Ulthera. Although I haven’t seen a live demonstration of it, the description of the technology behind it and the before and after pictures were compelling. Plus, the Ulthera System has been FDA cleared and has been approved to use the word “lift”. So how does this facelift without a scalpel work?

Ulthera uses ultrasound, a technology that most of us are familiar with as medical imaging when pregnant or having a breast exam. This means that a dermatologist using Ulthera can see an image deep into the dermis of the fibro muscular layer or connective tissue. At the same time, the ultrasound delivers a focused beam of heat (about 60 degrees celsius) for 20 mili-seconds. This micro-targeted and very fast heating of the tissue causes it to be “injured” and the tissue’s response is to contract. The result is tighter skin.

However, contracted tissues aren’t the body’s only response. It also produces more elastin and collagen. Fun fact, 70% of us (by which I mean, the part that is not water) is collagen. Now you know. The before and after images, including one of a woman over the age of 70, were impressive. Ninety days after treatment, brows were visibly lifted. And I mean strikingly so. As were jaw lines.

In these days of digital retouching, few of us really believe in before/after pictures. Nevertheless, I was mostly willing to take Ulthera’s at face value. This was largely because the scientist behind the system is Rox Anderson MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital (the world’s largest laboratory dedicated to biomedical uses of light). Dr Rox came across as though he didn’t have an inauthentic bone in his body.

I asked him how long he expected the results of an Ulthera System treatment to last. He replied that he was “confident that it is permanent”. Which makes the likely cost of a full face treatment – in the region of $2,500 to $3,000 – more acceptable. Actually, I almost feel tempted to start saving. There are only 30 of these relatively new systems in the US so far. To locate them contact info@ulthera.com.

No related posts.

I was really excited to read in Mark’s post, One Guy’s Routine, that he had found a low cost alternative to the Clarisonic Brush. As a proud owner and devoted user of Clarisonic I was very eager to see how the Nutra Sonic Face Brush System would compare. I ordered one immediately on Amazon.com for just over $100 – a significant saving against Clarisonic’s $189. Now for a side by side test!

My first impressions were good. Perhaps because I had mentally prepared myself for something similar to Pretika’s rather pathetic knock off version of the Clarisonic, I imagined flimsy plastic and hard to assemble brush heads. Au contraire, the Nutra Sonic Face Brush System looks and feels as robust as the Clarisonic and works on the same principal. It oscillates 400 times per second (for what it’s worth that is a bit more than Clarisonic’s 300 oscillations per second), has four speed settings, two face brushes (regular and sensitive) and a body brush.

But what would it be like against the skin? I found that it feels very different to Clarisonic. Nutra Sonic isn’t rougher exactly but it feels firmer against the skin. I tend to hold the Clarisonic fairly firmly against my skin, whereas with Nutra Sonic I was consciously trying to glide across the surface. Even maintaining a lighter touch, the Nutra Sonic did a much better job than Clarisonic at shifting visible flakes of skin. I also liked the Nutra Sonic’s feel against my body. This is where the firmer touch of this brush felt that it was really getting down to business.

I expect that I will reserve the Nutra Sonic for body, in the shower and for days when I feel that my face needs a good going over. Otherwise, my sensitive and rosacea-prone face seems to prefer the gentler Clarisonic. Since most people are going to have to choose between them, I’d say that Nutra Sonic is great value and will prove to be a good buy. For those with very sensitive skin, it will be worth forking out the extra for Clarisonic.

No related posts.

With so many advanced technological skin devices hitting the market (many at high price points that make us step back and think if it’s worth the investment!), we’ve decided to pare a few out for you. Here’s our round up of the Who’s and What’s on the skincare gadget scene:

BABY QUASAR, $399

USES: Aging skin, to brighten and treat hyperpigmentation.

Baby Quasar is an non-invasive LED (light emitting diode) for at home use. It uses red light frequency and invisible infra-red light to stimulate the body’s tissues and convert light energy into cellular energy. Because of the skin’s high blood and water content, its layers absorb the red light and deliver enough energy to stimulate the body to heal itself. Essentially, this response is a boost in collagen production and removal of excess pigmentation or scar tissue.

It’s an easy, pain-free way to brighten your skin using your own body. This particular device works but is not as powerful as an in-salon LED sessions. However, with salon treatments running $75 or more a session, purchasing an at-home device like Baby Quasar may be a more cost effective option either on its own or as a proper regimen in between in-salon visits. You may even be able to space those visits out longer by using something like this in the interim.

Available for purchase in TIA’s shop!

Read more: How good is at-home LED light therapy

PRETIKA LIGHTSONIC PULSATING LIGHT THERAPY, $40

USES: Aging skin, to brighten and treat hyperpigmentation.

This uses the same photorejuvenation therapy as Baby Quasar to treat hyperpigmentation and uneven, aging skin complexions at a fraction of the price ($40 vs. $400). However, whereas Baby Quasar uses about 630 to 950 nanometers of infrared light, Pretika uses 660 nanometers – weaker than the general range of the former. We haven’t tested this one ourselves, but we are guessing you’re getting what you paid for.

TANDA ANTI-AGING, $275

USES: Aging skin, to brighten and treat hyperpigmentation.

Tanda is another handheld anti-aging device which uses 660 nanometer red LED light. The biggest difference here is that it has an interchangeable head (if you want to install a different treatment head, for exmpale, blue light for acne in case your needs change). Their website says that the restorative light “modulates the activity of fibroblasts” that leads to collagen production and reduced appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. They also says that when used daily, it can slow down the production of enzymes that cause skin tissue to break down (and lead to lines). As far as we can tell, Tanda doesn’t use infrared light like Baby Quasar. It only mentions that it uses LED combined with “microprocessor control and proprietary optics to deliver clinical levels of light from a home use device.”

CLARISONIC CLASSIC BRUSH, $195

USES: Deep cleaning and aiding in penetration of skin care products

This 2-speed deep-cleaning brush has a rotating head that is powered by ultra-sonic waves – made by the same company as SoniCare toothbrushes. The rotating head removes dead skin cells, stimulates pores, and removes dirt and grime. It comes with the option to choose a brush head for either sensitive or normal skin along with 1 oz. trial sizes of Refreshing Gel Cleanser, Gentle Hydro Cleanser and Nourishing Care Cleanser

CLARISONIC PLUS BRUSH, $225

USES: Deep cleaning and aiding in penetration of skin care products for face AND body

This is very similar to the Clarisonic Classic Brush with a few key differences to stretch the extra $30: (1) It has a 3-speed option instead of two; (2) it comes with only the sensitive brush head; (3) comes with an extra bigger brush head for the body; and (4) they also throw in a 2 oz. trial size Refining Skin Polish with glycolic acid http://truthinaging.com/face/what-is-it-glycolic-acid-and-other-ahas/.
It promises proper exfoliation and less dry patches for the skin. Also good if you’re into self-tanner to help your body absorb more of the product. If you need a deeper clean for your body, this would be worth the investment – although you can use the regular Clarisonic on your body as well. You will probably just have to replace your brush head more often if you’re using it regularly on more than just your face!

CLARISONIC OPAL SONIC INFUSION, $245

USES: For the reduction of fine lines and wrinkles, and firmer, more hydrated skin.

Clarisonic Opal is half device, half cartridge of the company’s own anti-aging skin serum. By removing removing the dispenser cap, then placing a few drops of the serum into the applicator tip of the other half, you then turn the device on and move it in slow, circular motions on your outer eye area. Marta has some major gripes about the whole product’s philosophy. For one, you can only use their serum which costs $100 to replace every few months. Next, for a device so hi-tech, it’s surprising you still have to dab in the remainder of the serum with your finger AFTER use. Makes the whole system seem a bit pointless. Probably not the best use of your money.

PRETIKA SONIC DERMABRASION. $50

USES: Deep cleaning and exfoliating

It may look the same as the Clarisonic brush, but the results from using both are most certainly are not. It’s a a two-speed exfoliating facial brush used to slough off the outer layer of skin. A similar concept as Clarisonic’s brush (even touted as its knock off) and is designed to help your skin better absorb products. However, as Marta mentioned in her “Reviewed and Rejected” post, she found this to be too harsh and ineffective for her skin, and may be a better a option for men with tougher skin.

NU FACE

USES: To tone and lift facial muscles

This is like a mini workout for your face. The device produces microcurrents to work and lift and stimulate facial muscles. It’s NOT an anti-wrinkle device as much as it’s meant for toning. The charge (which is one millionth of an ampere — the same as the body’s natural electricity), re-educates muscles to respond to regular nerve stimulation, as mentioned in Nu Face post. Their website says it thereby strengthens your face.

NU SKIN THE GALVANIC SPA, $350

NU SKIN: To firm skin, clear up breakouts, and treat wrinkles.

This is a triple-whammy: a handheld device that uses a direct electric current to firm the skin, clear up breakouts and fade wrinkles. Used with different gels that it comes with, as we noted in our Nu Skin review, it’s based on the theory that light charges repel, the galvanic negative currents encourage the absorption of charged ingredients. We found in our tests that Nu Skin was better compared to Baby Quasar at lifting the brow bone area and tightening forehead lines — but not as much at labial nasal lines and lifting the jawline. However, it was a quicker regimen — 5 minutes compared to Baby Quasar’s 20. Another thing to note, this device similar to Clarisonic’s Opal, in that it is mean to be used with the gels provided. They recently reformulated its gel based on a “proprietary new ingredient blend” that is called ageLOC that is promised to “slow down the signs of aging at their source”.

Available in TIA’s shop!

No related posts.

Dear Mr Giuliani

You don’t know me, but I feel impelled to eshew the usual product review and take the liberty of directing my comments on your Clarisonic Opal Sonic Infuser device to you personally. This is because you are responsible for two extremely important elements of my personal care regiment: the Philips Sonicare toothbrush (which has had such a positive impact on my teeth and gums that my dentist keeps asking me what I am doing) and the Clarisonic Brush (of which I am a daily user and unconditional fan). But the Clarisonic Opal is not worthy of you.

It isn’t just that it doesn’t really work (at least not for me and I’ll come back to my test in a moment). It is… well, there is nothing for it but to be brutally honest with you…. monumentally unintelligent. There I have said it. The Clarisonic Opal is just a dumb idea. And I’d go so far as to say that in some ways it is a bad idea.

The worst thing about the Opal is that it locks the consumer into using your serum with the device. Not content with that, you have designed the thing so that I have to buy half of the device all over again every time it runs out.  This is because the top section is loaded with serum and when it runs out, you can’t refill it. So the consumer, after forking out $280 for the Opal in the first place, has to buy another set of two (three month supply) for $100. Actually, worse than this is how wasteful the whole concept is. I have to toss this substantial – and expensive – piece of plastic every time I need more of your serum. This isn’t just bad for my wallet, it is BAD for the planet.

Mr G, what in the world were you thinking of?

I have tested the Clarisonic Opal every day for the past five weeks on the area below and around my eyes as instructed. The device buzzes and gently vibrates against the skin, but to what effect? None that I can tell. After using the Opal for its 30 second stint, I always had some serum that was on the surface of the skin and required rubbing in with that terribly old fashioned beauty accessory, the finger.

After a few days, this inspired a side by side test. I used my finger to massage in your serum around one eye and the Opal on the other. The difference? A small bout of milia on the device side. And overall, this serum didn’t really perform at all. I’ll concede that the ingredients list is pretty good, but it had no impact on my skin tone or wrinkles and I returned eagerly to tried and true serums and eye creams that me and my pinky seem to do just fine with.

Sincerely,

Marta

Ingredients in serum

Water (Aqua), Epilobium Angustifolium Leaf/Stem Extract, Glycerin, Hydrolyzed Elastin, Glycosaminoglycans, PEG-8 Dimethicone, Kigelia Africana Fruit Extract, Silanetriol Trehalose Ether, Saccharomyces Ferment, Avena Sativa (Oat) Kernel Extract, Ceratonia Siliqua Gum, Hydrolyzed Casein, Laminaria Saccharina Extract, Algae Extract, Pullulan, Skeletonema Costatum Extract, Acetyl Citrull Amido Arginine, Arginine PCA, Plankton Extract, Soluble Collagen, Chrondrus Crispus (Carrageenan) Extract, Chrondrus Crispus (Carrageenan), Niacinamide, Ascorbic Acid, Bisabolol, Zingiber Officinale (Ginger) Root Extract, Opuntia Coccinellifera Fruit Extract, Sodium PCA, Urea, Trehalose, Sodium Hyaluronate, Polyquaternium-51, Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate HCL, Butylene Glycol, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Chlorphenesin, Disodium EDTA, Sodium Hydroxide.

No related posts.

There has been a lot of back and forth between my ecommerce partner, OpenSky, and the lovely Rob at Nu Skin over the past few weeks. Because I use Nu Skin’s Galvanic Spa and like its results, I wanted to sell it in the Truth In Aging Shop. However, I wanted to offer the TIA community  options to buy and use it: Galvanic Spa with gels, device only, the age-Loc set without the serum (which has a few to many fillers), or the whole shabang. Rob has been amazingly flexible and we have a veritable Nu Skin smorgasboard to pick and choose from.

The Galvanic Spa ($339.59 in the TIA shop) is a handheld device that emits a direct electronic current and, like other electrical current treatments (LED or microcurrent), it is supposed to encourage firmer skin, clear up breakouts and fade wrinkles. Nu Skin recently updated the device and it now works faster, the settings are more intuitive and the “head” (part that touches the skin) is ergonomically better than the old version (which sadly I still have).

In my experience, Nu Skin works very well on horizontal lines on the brow, vertical lines between the eyebrows, and the eye area. For an eye lift look, Nu Skin is impressive (and it only takes five minutes). Nu Skin is very good at tightening the forehead and smoothing lines across the brow. The Galvanic spa also works well on the jaw line. As well as the face, it can be used on the body to tackle cellulite and sagging arms, and on the hair.

Then there are the gels ($43.59 in the TIA shop). There are two types of gel in the pack: a Pre-Treatment gel and a Treatment Gel. The Pre-Treatment Gel has calendula and macrocystis pyrifera, a sea kelp as a whole is thought to be useful in skin care products thanks to its high iodine, vitamin and mineral content. The Treatment Gel has Nu Skin’s signature antioxidant botanical, schizandra chinensis, a fruit native to China and Japan that has long been used as a tonic for skin disorders. Recent studies have shown it to have antioxidant properties. It has also been found to have phytoestrogens and there are conflicting studies as to whether these cause or prevent cancer.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should admit that the gels are glooey and gloopy and dry quickly to form a crumbly mess. Plus, there are several preservatives, such as chlorpenesin and phenoxyethanol, that I’d rather avoid. Still, I haven’t found, despite experimentation, anything else that works as well with the Galvanic Spa device. The device and gels also come in a set, with a how-to DVD for $371.29 in the TIA shop.

Amongst the age-Loc products, my favorite product is the night cream, which has the botanical formula of pea extract, narcissus tazetta extract, bambusa vulgaris stem extract and schizandra chinensis. Pea is an antioxidant and bamboo is a source of natural silica. In fact, bamboo is 70% silica and silicon is humans is important to the integrity of the skin, ligaments, tendons and bone. The night cream also has glucosamine HCI, an anti-inflammatory. Shea and sodium hyaluronate moisturize. The cleanser is a good pore tightener and the day cream has an SPF. We are offering the option of this set without the serum, as I wasn’t too wild about it for $177.29 in the TIA shop.

No related posts.

I have become a big fan of LED light therapy with monthly salon sessions and top ups at home with my Baby Quasar. My husband is more than a little bemused by these rituals and a few months ago, he asked my how LED works to rejuvenate the skin. It’s a good question and, until recently, it was poorly understood. Scientists, like me, could see the results, but couldn’t explain them. Apologies for the long post, but it turns out that LED is complex and controversial.

Granted that even NASA said good things about LED: “Low-energy photon irradiation by light in the far-red to near-IR spectral range with low-energy (LLLT) lasers or LED arrays has been found to modulate various biological processes in cell culture and animal models. This phenomenon of photobiomodulation has been applied clinically in the treatment of soft tissue injuries and the acceleration of wound healing.”

But even NASA was a bit vague about the whys and hows. Around 2003, it was being described as similar to photosynthesis. A Harvard paper summed it up in 2006: “The use of low levels of visible or near infrared light for reducing pain, inflammation and edema, promoting healin of wounds, deeper tissues and nerves, and preventing tissue damage has been known for almost forty years since the invention of lasers. Originally thought to be a peculiar property of laser light (soft or cold lasers), the subject has now broadened to include photobiomodulation and photobiostimulation using non-coherent light. Despite many reports of positive findings from experiments conducted in vitro, in animal models and in randomized controlled clinical trials, LLLT remains controversial.”

The controversy was due to the mechanism of how LED or low level light therapy (LLL) works being a bit of mystery. The second issue – contributing to the mystery – is that experiments would vary things like wavelength, pulse density and goodness knows what making it difficult to see replicated conclusions.

Then came along some research that suggests that it has to do with water. Researchers in Germany concluded that “by targeting water layers on elastin, facial wrinkle levels could be significantly reduced by irradiation of the skin with visible light, which was found to interact with interfacial water layers on model substrates.”

So there we have it. But not so fast. I was pulling all this information together when, the other day, I received an email from Angela with a link to an article that said that researchers found that LED did a good job on wrinkles but also the exposure to intense LED light generated high levels of reactive oxygen species, as byproducts that can potentially damage cells. Eeek!

To combat that effect, the article went on to say the researchers combined the LED with a potent antioxidant in green tea extract called epigallocatechin gallate. And all was well again. Hmm. What was going on? And, as Angela, reasonably asked, would our Baby Quasar’s be destroying our cells?

The researchers turned out to be none other than the Germans who came up with the water theory mentioned above. I went back to look at their research paper and couldn’t find a single mention of reactive oxygen species being generated or epigallocatechin gallate. Nor could I find any other research papers of theirs that did – only the article (which didn’t have any links back to the research). Perhaps the article was planted by the green tea council.

Most of the science seems to agree that light therapy increases production of ATP (the energy engine of cells) and the modulation of reactive oxygen species and that, according to that Harvard paper mentioned above, “these effects in turn lead to increased cell proliferation and migration (particularly by fibroblasts), modulation in levels of cytokines, growth factors and inflammatory mediators, and increased tissue oxygenation.”

Then I found some research that focused specifically “on the role of reactive oxygen species in the cellular and tissue effects of low level light therapy (LLLT).” It said that ROS scavengers, antioxidants and ROS quenchers block many LLLT processes. However, it concluded that  ”it may be the case that LLLT can be pro-oxidant in the short-term, but anti-oxidant in the long-term.”

This chimes with a Chinese study that suggests there may be something to the green tea theory. It says that ROS can be activated by LED but this is significantly diminished by applying vitamin C or superoxide dismutase.

My take on all of this is that the benefits of LED are well-documented and wide-ranging. However, the light can also signal scavengers in the short-term, but that these are ultimately overthrown by the antioxidant activity that the light stimulates. On the other hand, using a topical antioxidant seems to speed up that process. So I am definitely going to continue enjoying the benefits of my Baby Q, but will be sure to slather on my favorite serum first.

No related posts.

It’s the thought that counts, or so they say. Hallmark wants you to believe that a card will keep your Valentine happy. Godiva and Russell Stover probably couldn’t make it through the year without February 14th. But cards, candy, and flowers are so played out. This Valentine’s Day, think outside the heart-shaped box and surprise your loved one with something he or she can really use. We’ll make that easier for you with our picks for the Five Best gifts to spoil your sweetheart and show your creative side.

Ranging in price from $8 to $48, these gifts don’t require a huge commitment, but still send the message that your heart is committed. There are items that you can use together, such as massage oil or fizzy bath tablets. There are tools and treatments for staying soft and well-moisturized. And there is a brand-new hair care gadget by our favorite celebrity hairstylist. Each gift is equally useful for a male or female recipient. If you want to prove that you are truly an expert on pampering, also check our gift guide for the Five Best beauty products worth the splurge.

Ingredients in Bliss Glamour Gloves:

Nylon gloves with polymer gel lining containing mineral oil, hydrogenated styrene isoprene/butadiene copolymer, olive oil, canola, jojoba oil, grape seed oil, soybean extract, ceramide 3, tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E acetate), fragrance, BHT.

Ingredients in Crabtree & Evelyn La Source Bath Tablets:

Sodium Bicarbonate, Citric Acid, Monosodium Citrate, Maltodextrin, PEG 150, Silica, Fragrance (Parfum), Talc, C10 18 Triglycerides, Laminaria Digitata Extract, Spirulina Maxima Extract, Benzyl Salicylate, Limonene, Eugenol, Linalool, Hexylcinnamal, Geraniol, Hydroxyisohexyl 3 Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde, Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Blue 1 (CI 42090), Red 33 (CI 17200).

Ingredients in Farmaethetics Midnight Honey Bath & Beauty Oil:

Sweet soy oil*, honey absolute & vitamin e (certified organic ingredients*).

Ingredients in Wilava Intense Moisture Shea Butter Lotion Bar (Purely Unscented):

Shea Butter, Beeswax, Jojoba Oil, Coconut Oil, Vitamin E.

No related posts.

In the quest to fend off the signs of aging, many men and women find that healthy living and anti-wrinkle lotions and potions fail to deliver the youthful looks they desire. As reported by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the total number of plastic surgery procedures performed in the US increased 3% in 2008, with the number of Botox and Hyaluronic filler injections increasing 8% and 6%, respectively.

While nips and tucks are nothing new in the anti-aging community, there’s a new contender in town that offers up something previously unavailable – permanent silicone lip implants. SurgiSil, a medical device company from Texas, offers a permanent facial implant marketed in the United Kingdom as PermaLip. PermalLip has recently gained attention in the United States since being featured on The Doctors, a popular daytime television program.

In an attempt to avoid the dreaded “trout pout” look sported by many celebrities, women are turning to Perma Facial Implant, which “is contoured, has a smooth surface to minimize tissue growth, and is reversible.” Unlike commonly used lip plumpers like collagen and Restylane, insertion of the PermaLip implant is a one-time procedure and, unlike injectable fillers, PermaLip can’t redistribute into an undesired portion of the lip, an ugly and obvious sign of having used lip fillers.

So is PermaLip too good to be true? Ever since we reviewed the Feather Lift procedure and saw some of the nasty results of this facial implant, we’ve been wary of any permanent sub-dermal insertions. Various internet message boards, which are notorious for hosting scathing beauty reviews, have glowing accounts from individuals who have had the PermaLip procedure themselves -despite procedural costs of over $2000. On the other hand, the association of silicone implants and toxicity are fairly clear.

The Journal of Toxicology reported that silicone injections led to multi-organ failure. Research collected by the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee (PSC) for the National Breast Implant Litigation shows that silicone has marked effects on the adrenal glands and liver, induces chronic inflammation, and degrades into smaller molecules, including silica. Silicone fed to rabbits produced widespread toxic effects including kidney and spleen damage within four months. (Stanford Medical Bulletin, 10:1 [1952], 23-26.) “That silicone is toxic in both animals and man is well proven“, stated John S. Sergent, M.D., and colleagues in Textbook of Rheumatology (W.B. Saunders Company, 1993).

No related posts.