Ultrasonographic assessments were conducted as follows: 1 - pre-procedure screening to evaluate possible thyroid injuries or pre-existing changes in the cervical region; 2 - on day 15 – fifteen days after injection (a period that bruising and possible measuring biases were already healed); and 3 - on day 60 – sixty days after injection and, if the study required, a new assessment would be carried out on day 180 – 6 months after the application.
The exclusion criteria of the study were family and/or personal history of thyroid diseases and patients that presented any pathological findings on day 0 (pre-procedure screening).
Radiologists responded to a questionnaire (Table 1) with the following considerations. If there was evidence of any product: if so, 1 - what finding was related to the product; 2 - in which anatomical plane the product was located; 3 - the impact of this product in the thyroid assessment (A - without any difficulties, B - interference that did not impair the
The exclusion criteria of the study were family and/or personal history of thyroid diseases and patients that presented any pathological findings on day 0 (pre-procedure screening).
Radiologists responded to a questionnaire (Table 1) with the following considerations. If there was evidence of any product: if so, 1 - what finding was related to the product; 2 - in which anatomical plane the product was located; 3 - the impact of this product in the thyroid assessment (A - without any difficulties, B - interference that did not impair the
RESULTS
All volunteers who were able to participate in the study were women. There was no evidence of any exclusion criteria conditions. The average age of participants was 43 years, and it ranged from 34 to 64 years.
In the evaluation of day 15 (fifteen days after application) both radiologists were able to identify with 100% assertiveness that there was product in the neck of the patients and, in the same way, they were able to identify that there was no evidence of product in the neck of the control patients. In 100% of cases, the image finding was of hyperechogenicity with mild posterior acoustic shadowing. The product was found in superficial subcutaneous plane in all the cases (this was also a coherent finding among both radiologists; Figure 3).
In the evaluation of day 15 (fifteen days after application) both radiologists were able to identify with 100% assertiveness that there was product in the neck of the patients and, in the same way, they were able to identify that there was no evidence of product in the neck of the control patients. In 100% of cases, the image finding was of hyperechogenicity with mild posterior acoustic shadowing. The product was found in superficial subcutaneous plane in all the cases (this was also a coherent finding among both radiologists; Figure 3).
