The usually credible Plasmetic blog recently published a ringing endorsement of the Acculift "lunchtime lift" procedure, which has been booed publicly by surgeons posting on the RealSelf online forum. The Acculift was popularized by J David Holcomb, MD, a Sarasota, Fla-based facial plastic surgeon. Lunchtime Facelift offers permanent results:

Facial fillers like Botox are often chosen by people who wish to retain the youthful appearance of their faces. However, the effects are often temporary and touch ups are required after about 6 months. But now there is another quick procedure that literally melts away the problems of the face. Ideal for treating jowls and deep fold, the Acculift procedure, also known as the ‘Lunchtime facelift’, is a revolutionary facial contouring procedure. And, the best thing is, the results are permanent.

A visit to the Acculift Web site shows a brief description of the Acculift procedure as "Facial contouring." Images on this Web site are credited to Holcomb. Here is Dr Holcomb's short-form biography on his practice Web site:

Dr. J. David Holcomb, MD, is a double board certified Facial Plastic Surgeon, past president of the Florida Society of Facial Plastic Surgeons and current president of the Sarasota County Medical Society. He completed his residency training at the University of Iowa's Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, which is consistently rated among the best in the country by US News and World Report.  Dr. Holcomb subsequently completed a fellowship in advanced cosmetic facial plastic surgery through the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

There's nothing wrong with promoting oneself on the wings, let's say, of a minimally-invasive technique that you have created that has caught on (especially in the blogosphere). This approach to marketing one's practice is, I'm sure, gratifying on many levels. However, there is a backlash effect that happens on the Web.

In the case of the Acculift, physicians on RealSelf.com posted critical comments about the procedure, which is probably the last thing Holcomb -- or any surgeon -- wants to see. The prospective patient may automatically give increased weight to a "review" of a procedure versus any attempt by the doctor to legitimize the procedure in question. 

Eva S over at RealSelf has published another winner topic that should be on the minds of all plastic and cosmetic surgeons: A medical license may not be as trustworthy as you thought.

It would seem logical that when a doctor administers fake Botox or repeatedy botches a plastic surgery procedure, they would lose their medical license. Unfortunately for consumers, even in these extreme cases of negligence, it's really hard for a doctor to actually lose their medical license.

Caught injecting fake Botox?  The doctor gets probation

Recently a Sacramento dermatologist was injecting patients with an illegal, fake Botox. Instead of losing his medical license, Dr. Timothy Rosio was placed on probation.

This wasn't the doctor's first encounter with his medical board. The Sacramento Bee reported that Dr. Rosio had been convicted in federal court of two counts involving misbranded drugs, and accused of dishonesty for failing to disclose two suspensions by the UC Davis Health System involving liposuction, ethical issues and quality of care issues.

In just under 3 years, Dr. Rosio can legally see patients again for Botox or other treatments.

Repeated botched jobs & DUI convictions

Donda West’s cosmetic surgery-related death highlighted the fact that a questionable track record can have no impact on a doctor's ability to see patients. Dr. Jan Adams, the surgeon who operated on her the day before she died, had four malpractice judgments against him (source: California Medical Board), plus two DUI convictions and a complaint for failure to provide child support. It was only after Donda West's death that Dr. Adams voluntarily surrendered his medical license.

Only the "worst of the worst' doctors lose their license.

More...

According to a review that was recently published in the Truth in Aging blog, the new Botox competitor, Reloxin, is poised to take down the established botulinum toxin Type A champ, Botox. This is an easy claim to make, seeing as how every aesthetic-industry pundit this side of the Atlantic has been, for years, sighing that Botox really needs a competitor. However, Truth in Aging at least makes the case without resorting to too much hype or hyberbole.

Though it is superficially identical to Botox, Reloxin is different in that it is suspended in lactose, whereas Botox is suspended in sodium chloride. Also, Botox is provided in 100-unit vials, as opposed to Reloxin’s 500-unit vials, making the preparation less expensive for doctors- a bonus likely to be passed on to consumers. Doctors typically pay over $500 per vial of Botox, enough to treat only five different facial areas, or 1-2 patients. With the entry of Reloxin in the arena of injectable treatments for wrinkles, a marketing battle and pricing war are expected to ensue.

Officially termed “botulinum toxin type A” (since it is made from the same bacteria that causes botulism food poisoning), Reloxin was originally submitted to the FDA for approval in March of 2007, with the expectation that it would be reviewed within 10 months and ready for commercialization in North America shortly thereafter. Though the FDA confirmed that the facilities of Reloxin’s manufacturer, Ipsen, are in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices, the drug remains in limbo for the U.S. market. It is currently approved for aesthetic use in 23 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Egypt, El Saldavor, Germany, Honduras, Israel, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Moldova, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Slovak Republic, South Korea, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam).

With the FDA’s seal of approval, Reloxin will prove that it is comparable to the cosmetic gold standard that Botox has become over the past seven years.

Well, the reviewer cannot avoid the hype, after all.

Besides longevity and price, Reloxin has shown to differ from Botox in effect, spreading farther from the injection site. In areas such as the forehead, this characteristic might be considered favorable, since it would reduce the quantity of injections required and subsequently minimize the potential for bruising. However, in areas where more precision is desired, Reloxin may not be the best solution. Ultimately, each drug might one day be used either in concert or as distinct treatments for targeted facial zones.

Read it all.