Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “COSMETICS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Cosmetic dermatitis - current perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of cosmetics by modern society has contributed alarming to an rise in the incidence of cosmetic dermatitis (CD). The causative agents are skin, hair, nail and eye cosmetics. Reported cases of cosmetic dermatitis represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most patients who experience an adverse reaction to cosmetics do not consult a physician but discontinue using the suspected items. METHODS: A comprehensive history followed by adequate clinical examination and patch test is important to diagnose reaction to cosmetics. In addition other tests like Repeated Open Application Test (ROAT), usage test, elimination test and safety test are important, as many cosmetics and their ingredients are either weak allergens or irritants. RESULTS: A wide variety of adverse reactions to cosmetics are seen which are of both irritant and allergic type. Pattern of CD varies in different parts of the world depending upon the type and frequency of different cosmetics used. Reactions are more commonly seen in females of younger age and the face is the most common site. CONCLUSIONS: Though prevention is better than cure, but cosmetics have definitely infiltrated into our life style. We cannot prevent use of cosmetics but can only limit their use by educating their users and helping them in judicious selection of the required cosmetics.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Host, tumor, and treatment-related factors influencing cosmetic outcome are analyzed for patients receiving breast conservation treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four-hundred and fifty-eight patients with evaluable records for cosmesis evaluation, a subset of 701 patients treated for invasive breast cancer with conservation technique between 1969 and 1990, were prospectively analyzed. In 243 patients, cosmetic evaluation was not adequately recorded. Cosmesis evaluation was carried out from 3.7 months to 22.3 years, median of 4.4 years. By pathologic stage, tumors were 62% T1N0, 14% T1N1, 15%, T2N0, and 9% T2N1. The majority of patients were treated with 4-6 MV photons. Cosmetic evaluation was rated by both patient and physician every 4-6 months. A logistic regression analysis was completed using a stepwise logistic regression. P-values of 0.05 or less were considered significant. Excellent cosmetic scores were used in all statistical analyses unless otherwise specified. RESULTS: At most recent follow-up, 87% of patients and 81% of physicians scored their cosmetic outcome as excellent or good. Eighty-two percent of physician and patient evaluations agreed with excellent-good vs. fair-poor rating categories. Analysis demonstrated a lower proportion of excellent cosmetic scores when related to patient age > 60 years (p = 0.001), postmenopausal status (p = 0.02), black race (p = 0.0034), and T2 tumor size (p = 0.05). Surgical factors of importance were: volume of resection > 100 cm3 (p = 0.0001), scar orientation compliance with the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) guidelines (p = 0.0034), and > 20 cm2 skin resected (p = 0.0452). Extent of axillary surgery did not significantly affect breast cosmesis. Radiation factors affecting cosmesis included treatment volume (tangential breast fields only vs. three or more fields) (p = 0.034), whole breast dose in excess of 50 Gy (p = 0.0243), and total dose to tumor site > 65 Gy (p = 0.06), as well as optimum dose distribution with compensating filters (p = 0.002). Daily fraction size of 1.8 Gy vs. 2.0 Gy, boost vs. no boost, type of boost (brachytherapy vs. electrons), total radiation dose, and use of bolus were not significant factors. Use of concomitant chemotherapy with irradiation impaired excellent cosmetic outcome (p = 0.02). Use of sequential chemotherapy or adjuvant tamoxifen did not appear to diminish excellent cosmetic outcomes (p = 0.31). Logistic regression for excellent cosmetic outcome analysis was completed for age, tumor size, menopausal status, race, type of surgery, volume of breast tissue resected, scar orientations, whole breast radiation dose, total radiation dose, number of radiation fields treated, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Significant independent factors for excellent cosmetic outcome were: volume of tissue resected (p = 0.0001), type of surgery (p = 0.0001), breast radiation dose (p = 0.005), race (p = 0.002), and age (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory cosmesis was recorded in 81% of patients. Impaired cosmetic results are more likely with improper orientation of tylectomy and axillary incisions, larger volume of breast resection, radiation dose to the entire breast in excess of 50.0 Gy, and concurrent administration of chemotherapy. Careful selection of treatment procedures for specific patients/tumors and refinement in surgical/irradiation techniques will enhance the cosmetic results in breast conservation therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Breast compliance: a new method for evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of early breast cancer.

As a measure of cosmetic outcome, the compliance of normal and irradiated breasts has been quantified using a new method of Breast Compliance Evaluation (BCE). A total of 151 women were studied, of whom 100 were normal controls and 51 had previous breast irradiation as part of breast-conserving treatment. Compliance was taken as the difference between the anterior breast surface length from infra-mammary fold to the nipple when the patient was in erect and supine positions. Irradiated cases were rated as having satisfactory outcome (good or excellent cosmetic result) or unsatisfactory (fair or poor cosmetic result). Mean compliance of normal cases was 1.8 cm. In the irradiated women with satisfactory cosmetic results, mean compliance was 1.45 compared with only 0.77 cm in those with unsatisfactory outcome. The difference between the compliance of both breasts was 0.1 cm for the controls, 0.3 cm in the satisfactory group and 2 cm in the unsatisfactory group. A difference in compliance greater than 1 cm was usually associated with an unsatisfactory cosmetic outcome. Factors determining cosmetic outcome included volume of excised lump and breast size. The cosmetic result was not affected by tumour site, clinical or pathological tumour size, or the total number of axillary nodes excised. This simple, painless, and easily reproducible measurement may be a useful objective indicator of cosmetic result after conservative treatment of early breast cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Cosmetic rhinoplasty in body dysmorphic disorder.

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) occurs in about 5% of patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Such patients are often dissatisfied with surgery or their symptoms of BDD are the same or worse after surgery. We report on a study that was designed to determine the frequency of BDD in patients requesting cosmetic rhinoplasty in the UK and to compare them with BDD patients in a psychiatric clinic. In the first stage of the study, we used a screening questionnaire for BDD and found that 20.7% of patients requesting rhinoplasty had a possible diagnosis of BDD. However, we believe that we identified a group of patients with sub-clinical or very mild BDD who are satisfied by cosmetic rhinoplasty. In the second stage of the study, we compared (a) patients without BDD who had a good outcome after cosmetic rhinoplasty with (b) BDD patients seen in a psychiatric clinic (who crave cosmetic rhinoplasty but for a variety of reasons do not obtain it). We found that BDD patients seen in a psychiatric clinic who desire cosmetic rhinoplasty are a quite distinct population from those obtaining routine rhinoplasty without symptoms of BDD. BDD patients are significantly younger, more depressed and anxious than this group, and are more preoccupied by their nose and check their nose more frequently. They are more likely to conduct "D.I.Y" surgery and have multiple concerns about their body. They are more likely to be significantly handicapped in their occupation, social life, and in intimate relationships and to avoid social situations because of their nose. They are therefore more likely to believe that dramatic changes would occur in their life after a rhinoplasty. This study provides some clues for surgeons who wish to identify patients with BDD who might have a poor prognosis in cosmetic rhinoplasty. Further research is required in the development of a screening questionnaire or interview for identifying patients with BDD seeking cosmetic surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC "boost versus no boost" trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate both qualitative and quantitative scoring methods for the cosmetic result after breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and to compare the usefulness and reliability of these methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In EORTC trial 22881/10882, stage I and II breast cancer patients were treated with tumorectomy and axillary dissection. A total of 5318 patients were randomized between no boost and a boost of 16 Gy following whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy. The cosmetic result was assessed for 731 patients in two ways. A panel scored the qualitative appearance of the breast using photographs taken after surgery and 3 years later. Digitizer measurements of the displacement of the nipple were also made using these photographs in order to calculate the breast retraction assessment (BRA). The cosmetic results after 3-year follow-up were used to analyze the correlation between the panel evaluation and digitizer measurements. RESULTS: For the panel evaluation the intraobserver agreement for the global cosmetic score as measured by the simple Kappa statistic was 0.42, considered moderate agreement. The multiple Kappa statistic for interobserver agreement for the global cosmetic score was 0.28, considered fair agreement. The specific cosmetic items scored by the panel were all significantly related to the global cosmetic score; breast size and shape influenced the global score most. For the digitizer measurements, the standard deviation from the average value of 30.0 mm was 2.3 mm (7.7%) for the intraobserver variability and 2.6 mm (8.7%) for the interobserver variability. The two methods were significantly, though moderately, correlated; some items scored by the panel were only correlated to the digitizer measurements if the tumor was not located in the inferior quadrant of the breast. CONCLUSIONS: The intra- and interobserver variability of the digitizer evaluation of cosmesis was smaller than that of the panel evaluation. However, there are some treatment sequelae, such as disturbing scars and skin changes, that can not be evaluated by BRA measurements. Therefore, the methods of cosmetic evaluation used in a study must be chosen in a way that balances reliability and comprehensiveness.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Prospective evaluation of late cosmetic results following breast reconstruction: I. Implant reconstruction.

The long-term cosmetic outcome of breast implant reconstruction is unknown. The morbidity and cosmetic outcome of 360 patients who underwent immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction with various types of implants have been analyzed prospectively over a 9-year period. Of these patients, 334 who completed their reconstruction were suitable for evaluation of their cosmetic outcome. The early complication rate (< 2 months) was 9.2 percent, with an explantation rate of 1.7 percent. The late complication rate (> 2 months) was 23 percent, with a pathological capsular contracture rate of 11 percent at 2 years and 15 percent at 5 years and an implant removal rate of 7 percent. The revisional surgery rate was 30.2 percent. The cosmetic results were assessed prospectively using an objective five-point global scale. Every patient was scored at each visit once surgery was completed. The overall cosmetic outcome deteriorated in a linear fashion, from an initial acceptable result of 86 percent 2 years after patients completed their reconstruction to only 54 percent at 5 years. This decline in cosmetic outcome was not associated with the type of implant used, the volume of the implant, the age of the patient, or the type of mastectomy incision employed. Radiotherapy was not a significant factor because only 28 patients were irradiated. Upon Cox model analysis, pathological capsular contracture was the only factor that contributed significantly to a poor cosmetic outcome in which p < 0.0001 (relative risk 6.3). Despite a high revisional surgery rate, deterioration still occurred, suggesting that other unaccounted for variables were responsible. On photographic retrospective review of the patients without capsular contracture who demonstrated deterioration in their cosmetic scores, it became clear that a possible reason for their poor results was late asymmetry produced by the failure of both breasts to undergo symmetrical ptosis with aging.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Discount cosmetic surgery: industry trends and strategies for success.

Discount cosmetic surgery is a topic of interest to plastic surgeons. To understand this trend and its effects on plastic surgeons, it is necessary to review the economics of cosmetic surgery, plastic surgery's practice environment, and the broader business principles of service industries. Recent work looked at the economics of the plastic surgery market. This analysis demonstrated that increased local density of plastic surgeons was associated with lower adjusted fees for cosmetic procedures. A survey of plastic surgeons about their practice environment revealed that 93 percent categorized the majority of their patients as very or moderately price-sensitive. Fully 98 percent described their business climate as very or moderately competitive and most plastic surgeons thought they lost a sizable number of cosmetic patients within the last year for reasons of price.A standard industry analysis, when applied to cosmetic surgery, reveals the following: an increased number of surgeons leads to lower fees (reducing their bargaining power as suppliers), patients are price-sensitive (increasing their bargaining power as buyers), and there are few barriers to entry among providers (allowing potential new entrants into the market). Such a situation is conducive to discounting taking hold-and even becoming the industry norm. In this environment, business strategy dictates there are three protocols for success: discounting, differentiation, and focus. Discounting joins the trend toward cutting fees. Success comes from increasing volume and efficiency and thus preserving profits. Differentiation creates an industrywide perception of uniqueness; this requires broadly positioning plastic surgeons as holders of a distinct brand identity separate from other "cosmetic surgeons." The final strategy is to focus on a particular buyer group to develop a market niche, such as establishing a "Park Avenue" practice catering to patients who demand a prestigious surgeon, although this is likely a small segment of the overall patient population. Plastic surgeons that buck the trend toward discount cosmetic surgery must take concrete and potentially costly steps to implement a plausible strategy for distinguishing their practices within the crowded cosmetic surgery market.

Cost Control↗
PubMed1999

[Cosmetics: definition and legal aspects of the term].

Classification of cosmetics, which are more and more similar to topical therapeutic agents, is getting increasingly difficult for dermatologists. Their definition within the EU and the respective European directives, replacing national laws step by step, will be briefly presented. The problems of distinguishing cosmetics from medicinal products will be discussed in detail by examples from clinical practice. Finally, we will review the various active substances which tend to be added to cosmetics following the global trend in the cosmetic industry towards developing "medicinally" active cosmetics, and in the pharmaceutical industry towards "cosmetically" oriented medicinal products as part of a current "life-style" ideology. In some clinical dermatological fields these active substances may allow the dermatologists to use cosmetics as topical therapeutic agents.

Cosmetics↗
PubMed2004

Safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU. Reality and challenges for the toxicologist.

Council Directive 76/768/EEC, its seven amendments and 30 adaptations to technical progress form the basis of the cosmetic EU legislation today. There are actually four key principles for safety in the cosmetic legislation. (i) The full responsibility for the safety of cosmetics for human health is placed on the manufacturer, first importer in the EU or marketer. (ii) The safety evaluation of finished products is based on safety of individual ingredients, more specifically on their chemical structure, toxicological profile and their level of exposure. (iii) A compilation of information on each cosmetic product (dossier) must be kept readily available for inspection by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. This information source, usually called a technical information file (TIF) or product information file/requirements (PIF(R)), contains, as the most important part, the safety assessment of the product undersigned by a competent safety assessor. (iv) The use of validated replacement alternative methods instead of animal testing forms the 4th key principle for safety of cosmetic products on the EU market. The 7th amendment imposes strict deadlines for the abolition of animal in vivo studies on cosmetic ingredients. These legal requirements induce a number of important challenges for the cosmetic industry and more specifically for the toxicologist involved as safety assessor.

Animal Testing Alternatives↗