Litigating Filler Complications: Five Decades of Legal Outcomes in the United States
Clicks: 6
ID: 325522
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.9
/100
6 views
3 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #29 of 72 articles by views in Aesthetic surgery journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Injectable fillers are increasingly used in aesthetic medicine, yet the medicolegal factors driving liability remain poorly defined. We conducted a retrospective review of U.S. civil litigation involving aesthetic injectable fillers using Westlaw and LexisNexis (1967-2025), extracting variables including filler type, anatomical site, provider credentials, practice setting, complication severity, FDA approval status, informed consent, and legal outcomes. Of 325 screened records, 46 met inclusion criteria. Claims were filed a mean of 2.4 years after the incident, with a mean of 2.5 years from filing to final decision. Plaintiff and defense outcomes were nearly evenly split (51% vs. 49%). The most implicated fillers were autologous fat (n=13, 28.3%), hyaluronic acid (n=12, 26.1%), and biostimulatory agents (n=12, 26.1%). The most common anatomical sites were the face, head, or neck (n=31, 67.4%), followed by breast (n=5, 10.9%) and buttock or body contouring (n=4, 8.7%). Neither physician credentialing, filler type, nor complication severity was significantly associated with legal outcome. Med-spa procedures had a 100% plaintiff verdict rate versus 47% in private clinic or hospital settings (p=0.024), and unapproved fillers had a 100% plaintiff verdict rate versus 44% for FDA-approved products (p=0.021). Documented informed consent was strongly protective, with substantially lower plaintiff verdict rates (8% vs. 65%, p=0.001). Liability was most strongly associated with regulatory and practice context rather than complication severity, filler type, or provider credentials, highlighting the importance of using FDA-approved products, ensuring thorough informed consent documentation, and maintaining appropriate oversight in medical spa settings.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7203762360
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tran Binh Le, David Le, Stephanie Vaidis, Katie G. Egan, David W. Mathes, Brooke French, Phuong D Nguyen, David Khechoyan, Christodoulos Kaoutzanis |
| Journal | Aesthetic surgery journal |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/asj/sjag168
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.