Background Over the years, botulinum toxin has found its place as a neuromuscular blocking agent in numerous medical fields. Since the approval of botulinum toxin by the FDA for cosmetic indications in 2002, it had become the most commonly performed esthetic procedure worldwide, with ever‐growing demand. The characteristics of the toxin, along with the facial areas it is injected to, could possibly account for a wide array of complication. Methods The authors conducted a literature search for reported cases of ophthalmic adverse events following Botulinum toxin facial injections in the electronic databases of PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Results The authors found 25 publications, reporting 49 cases of ophthalmic adverse events following botulinum toxin injections. Injections for cosmetic indications accounted for 51% of all injections, treatment of blepharospasms for 22% of cases, protective ptosis for 11% of cases, and treatment of hemifacial spams for 8% of cases. The average quantity of botulinum toxin injected to a single patient ranged between 1.25 and 75 units, with a median of 13.75 units.Majority of injections for cosmetic indications were performed to the lateral canthal area (56%), followed by the glabella (28%) and the forehead (20%).Adverse events following injections included diplopia (64%), ptosis (14%), and decrease in visual acuity or vision loss (8%). Conclusions Botulinum toxin is gaining extreme popularity in the management of a wide area of diseases and for cosmetic indications. Proper knowledge of potential adverse events is crucial for the clinician in attempt to decrease complications.

Background: Many transmasculine individuals face chest dysphoria, an emotional distress associated with breast development. The definitive management for reduction of existing breast tissue and alleviation of chest dysphoria comes in the form of chest masculinization surgery. Over the years, a substantial increase in the number of youth seeking gender-affirming chest masculinization surgery was observed globally. The study was hypothesized to answer the question as to whether the age limit of chest masculinization surgery should be lowered to include adolescents. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, based on the experience of a single surgeon over a period of 20 years. Results: Two-hundred eight patients were included in this cohort. Patients were divided into two equal groups based on their age. No statistically significant differences between the groups were observed in terms of resected breast tissue (P = 0.62 and 0.30, for the right and left breast, accordingly), auxiliary liposuction (P = 0.30), liposuction volume (P = 0.20), procedure (P = 0.15), postoperative drains (P = 0.79), and surgery duration (P = 0.72). Statistically significant differences were found in the 18 years or younger group, with lower rates of complication (P < 0.001), lower rates of revision surgery (P = 0.025), and higher satisfaction rankings (P < 0.001). Apart from age, no other factors were found to potentially explain the different rates of complications between the age groups. Conclusion: Patients aged 18 or younger opting for chest masculinization surgery experience fewer complications and revision procedures while having higher satisfaction rates with the surgical outcome.

No abstract