BAAPS releases new figures around fat-freezing complications

Following supermodel Linda Evangelista’s claims of having developed paradoxical adipose hyperplasia as a result of treatment with Allergan’s CoolSculpting device, the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) released new data from its audit of fat-freezing treatments in the UK. 

BAAPS’ Audit of Complications looked into complications from fat-freezing treatments requiring surgery that presented to its member surgeons between 2018 and 2020. According to the data, 7% of BAAPS members reported having to deal with serious complications, with 21 patients requiring surgery over the three-year period. 

Despite undergoing surgery to attempt correction, all 21 patients were left with some permanent deformity or scarring which was not present before undergoing the fat-freezing treatment. 

Of these patients, nine required liposuction, eight required an abdominoplasty and four required surgery for skin necrosis, as the original fat-freezing treatment had caused skin in the abdomen to die, needing surgical removal and reconstruction of the abdomen. 

In a press release, BAAPS said it believes the root cause of these findings is largely to do with irresponsible marketing of non-surgical treatments that are often “sold” on the back of celebrity endorsements, overshadowing the “benefits versus risks”  thought process for patients. 

BAAPS also said it believes that “non-surgical treatments are often released into the market with less long-term follow-up than comparative surgical operations.” Marc Pacifico, vice president of the organisation, said, “Celebrity culture has clouded people’s judgment by making them blind to the risk of complications, a phenomenon that has been exploited by manufacturers and clinics in pursuit of sales over safety.”

In light of this, BAAPS has produced a Code of Candour for Celebrity Marketing. It reads as follows:

1. Just like on Instagram, a celebrity endorsement must say that this is a paid promotion either by payment itself or an inducement such as free treatment.

2. The celebrity must also say if they had other treatments which may have contributed to the overall result (i.e.) statement saying whether they had alternative treatments or clearly denying that they did not so readers can see that the proposed treatment was entirely responsible for the result being promoted.

3. A clear before and after so the public can see what result the celebrity actually achieved. Often, they just show a picture of a celebrity who frankly always looked good so who knows whether the treatment was responsible or actually made any difference at all.  Many before and afters have completely different lighting, designed to enhance and flatter the “after” photograph – lighting should be standardized and comparable for the before and after photos.

In a press conference held on 30 September during which the audit and Code of Candour were announced, BAAPS president Mary O’Brien commented: “It's really important actually that we understand some of the principles behind non-surgical treatments, that they're not without risks, that marketing glamorises treatments. And, if complications do occur, that they did just cause physical scars, they cause emotional scars too That's the reasoning behind our Code of Candour.” 

Ethical and safety concerns led to the banning of injectable treatments for under-18s in the UK earlier this month.