Energy-Based Medical Devices in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison of FDA-Approved Indications to Advertised Claims.

Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum Pub Date : 2024-10-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/asjof/ojae083
Diego A Gomez, Isra Abdulwadood, Aaron Bogan, Bryn E Morris, Jeffrey M Kenkel, Robert W Bernard, Edward M Reece
{"title":"Energy-Based Medical Devices in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison of FDA-Approved Indications to Advertised Claims.","authors":"Diego A Gomez, Isra Abdulwadood, Aaron Bogan, Bryn E Morris, Jeffrey M Kenkel, Robert W Bernard, Edward M Reece","doi":"10.1093/asjof/ojae083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lasers and energy-based devices are commonly employed in aesthetic medicine. In the United States, the FDA regulates lasers as medical devices, restricting marketing to approved indications and making off-label claims illegal. Despite this, no comprehensive analysis of off-label marketing prevalence exists.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The authors of this study aim to compare the FDA-approved indications for 2 popular aesthetic lasers to their online advertising claims. Additionally, they seek to educate aesthetic providers on the current regulatory restrictions surrounding off-label advertising.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>FDA-approved indications for 2 lasers-helium plasma dermal resurfacing and 2940 nm fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet-were obtained from the publicly available Establishment Registration & Device Listings Database. Online advertisements regarding the capabilities of each laser were collected from practice websites in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis of 100 online claims for each laser revealed that more than half of the websites advertising helium plasma (<i>n</i> = 59) and 44 websites advertising fractional lasers made at least 1 off-label claim. Both plastic surgeons and nonplastic surgeons made at least 1 off-label claim, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite FDA regulation of medical devices, online advertising regarding the indications and capabilities of popular medical lasers varies widely. Patients who seek information regarding aesthetic laser treatments may encounter inaccurate and differing claims for these treatments, potentially leading to false expectations and poor patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence 4 risk: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":72118,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","volume":"6 ","pages":"ojae083"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11546647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojae083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lasers and energy-based devices are commonly employed in aesthetic medicine. In the United States, the FDA regulates lasers as medical devices, restricting marketing to approved indications and making off-label claims illegal. Despite this, no comprehensive analysis of off-label marketing prevalence exists.

Objectives: The authors of this study aim to compare the FDA-approved indications for 2 popular aesthetic lasers to their online advertising claims. Additionally, they seek to educate aesthetic providers on the current regulatory restrictions surrounding off-label advertising.

Methods: FDA-approved indications for 2 lasers-helium plasma dermal resurfacing and 2940 nm fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet-were obtained from the publicly available Establishment Registration & Device Listings Database. Online advertisements regarding the capabilities of each laser were collected from practice websites in the United States.

Results: Our analysis of 100 online claims for each laser revealed that more than half of the websites advertising helium plasma (n = 59) and 44 websites advertising fractional lasers made at least 1 off-label claim. Both plastic surgeons and nonplastic surgeons made at least 1 off-label claim, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.

Conclusions: Despite FDA regulation of medical devices, online advertising regarding the indications and capabilities of popular medical lasers varies widely. Patients who seek information regarding aesthetic laser treatments may encounter inaccurate and differing claims for these treatments, potentially leading to false expectations and poor patient outcomes.

Level of evidence 4 risk:

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
整形外科中的能量型医疗设备:FDA 批准的适应症与广告宣称的比较。
背景:激光和以能量为基础的设备通常用于美容医学。在美国,FDA 将激光作为医疗设备进行监管,限制在批准的适应症范围内进行营销,并规定标示外声明为非法。尽管如此,目前还没有对标示外营销的普遍性进行全面分析:本研究的作者旨在比较美国食品及药物管理局批准的两种常用美容激光器的适应症与它们的网络广告宣称。此外,他们还试图让美容服务提供者了解目前有关标示外广告的监管限制:方法:从公开的 "机构注册与设备列表数据库"(Establishment Registration & Device Listings Database)中获取了美国食品与药物管理局(FDA)批准的两种激光器的适应症--氦等离子体真皮换肤和2940纳米点阵掺铒钇铝石榴石。我们还从美国的医疗网站上收集了有关每种激光功能的在线广告:我们对每种激光器的 100 项在线声明进行了分析,结果显示,半数以上的氦等离子广告网站(59 家)和 44 家点阵激光器广告网站至少做出了一项标签外声明。整形外科医生和非整形外科医生都至少做了一次标签外声明,两组之间的差异没有统计学意义:结论:尽管美国食品及药物管理局对医疗器械进行监管,但有关常用医用激光的适应症和功能的在线广告却大相径庭。寻求有关激光美容治疗信息的患者可能会遇到对这些治疗的不准确和不同的说法,从而可能导致错误的期望和不良的治疗效果:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Commentary on: The Role of Nasal Fat Preservation in Upper Lid Surgery and Assessment With the FACE-Q Questionnaire: Innovations in Upper Blepharoplasty. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Autologous vs Irradiated Homologous Costal Cartilage Grafts for Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty. Commentary on: The Gargano Yin Yang Breast Reduction Technique: How to Obtain Better Breast Shape, Volume Distribution, and Size With Long-Lasting Results. Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years. Might Topical Heparin Help With Occlusion Emergencies After Accidental Intra-Arterial Hyaluronic Acid Injections?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1