Any experience in medicine should ideally be based on reliable, evidence-based practices. Unfortunately, aesthetic medicine, which has not yet been established as a separate branch of medicine in any country, lacks high-credibility evidence. Individual scientific studies are mostly funded by companies or are conducted using inadequate methodologies, which makes their reliability questionable. Therefore, international experience primarily involves sharing practices provided by high-level specialists.
Both Western, developed countries, and Asian experiences are worth highlighting, as the latter’s contribution to the development of aesthetic medicine is significant and of high quality. Over the last decade, important findings have emerged in the anatomy of aging, making aesthetic medicine interventions more justified and well-reasoned. This, in turn, has created the possibility of standardizing interventions, the adoption of which would greatly benefit our aesthetic medicine.
It is important to be a member of reputable international associations, including those from various European countries, as their recommendations are often adequate and, first and foremost, tailored to the patient’s interests. In general, international practice places patient safety first. For example, 10 years ago, the use of needles was more common among specialists during interventions; today, more emphasis is placed on the so-called blunt cannula, as the risk of developing dangerous complications is significantly reduced when it is used.
One of the problems with Georgian aesthetic medicine is the adoption of the experience of post-Soviet countries, which is actually focused on demonstrating various injection techniques and gives less consideration to anatomical knowledge, while giving less importance to patient safety. Western experience is less popular with our specialists, as it focuses on simplifying and standardizing injections, which, unfortunately, is not popular among our specialists. Every specialist wants to have their own “signature,” which contradicts the international approach that, I repeat, is focused on standardization. It is important to make more effort toward introducing Western experience by sharing knowledge with Georgian specialists and increasing its accessibility.
