Correction to “Complications After Exosome Treatment for Aesthetic Skin Rejuvenation”

Abstract

(2024), “Complications After Exosome Treatment for Aesthetic Skin Rejuvenation,” Dermatological Reviews 5: e242, https://doi.org/10.1002/der2.242.

In the article, the errors detailed below were identified. These corrections are due to an earlier version of the manuscript being published without patient consent. These have been corrected in the online version of the article, and they do not affect the overall conclusions.

The second sentence of the Background paragraph originally stated ‘aesthetics purposes in South Korea’. This has been corrected to ‘aesthetics purposes primarily in South Korea, including one patient residing in Australia.’

The second sentence of the Methods paragraph originally read, ‘The case series included eight female patients, ranging in age from 26 to 52 years old’. This has been corrected to “The case series included seven female patients ranging in age from 26 to 37 years old.’

The third paragraph, last sentence originally read ‘aesthetic dermatologists from South Korea’, who observed the complications. This has been corrected to ‘aesthetic dermatologists, who observed the complications. .’

In 2.8 Case 8, the case study was originally stated that, ‘This is a 52-year-old female who developed multiple erythematous papules (pea-sized) on the right cheek in a grid-like pattern (Figure 9), after a month of self-treatment with MTS microneedling and exosomes. These lesions were not painful or pruritic. Six weeks after the exosome self-treatment, she saw another dermatologist and received topical and oral steroids. On presentation to her current dermatologist (2 months after exosome treatment), she had a biopsy of a lesion demonstrating a necrotizing granuloma on H and E staining (Figure 10 A), and an AFB stain of the lesion was also negative (Figure 10B). Blood work involving a complete blood count, smooth muscle antibody, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein were within normal limits. Tissue cultures for mycobacteria and atypical mycobacteria were negative. Fungus culture was also negative. Moreover, PCR analysis of the tissue also demonstrated negativity for mycobacteria and atypical mycobacteria. For the first 5 weeks, the patient was given a course of methylprednisolone 8 mg once a day, clarithromycin 500 mg twice a day, and doxycycline 100 mg twice a day.’

This has been replaced by:‘A 29-year-old Chinese female residing in Australia came to South Korea seeking cosmetic treatment, where she received a single exosome treatment administered by a nurse practitioner in August 2023, using a 9-pin multineedle and injection gun. The patient reported that erythematous papules initially appeared at the needle insertion sites approximately 1 month after the treatment and were associated with pruritus. While some lesions resolved spontaneously within the first month after appearance, others persisted and progressively worsened over the next 6 months.’

Two months after the exosome treatment, the patient sought evaluation by a dermatologist. A physical examination revealed multiple erythematous papules (Figure 9). Dermatoscopic examination showed features of erythematous papules with superficial changes (Figure 10). The patient was treated with intralesional triamcinolone, pulsed dye laser (PDL), and CO2 laser therapy, with CO2 showing the most benefit but requiring careful use. PDL provided limited improvement, likely due to its shallow penetration, while triamcinolone had a minimal role in treatment.

Figure 9 and 10 and legendsFigure and legend have been changed due to replacement of Case 8. The correct Figure and legend are shown below.

In the first paragraph, it was originally stated that ‘All the patients in this series were female and from South Korea, with all the cases arising within the past 18 months. Additionally, among the patients who underwent biopsies, the pathological specimens revealed necrotizing granulomas that were not related to mycobacterial infections.’ This has been corrected to ‘All the patients in this series were female, primarily from South Korea, with all cases arose within the past 18 months. Additionally, among the patients, the pathological specimen from the one who underwent a biopsy specimens revealed necrotizing granulomas that were not related to mycobacterial infections.’

In the fifth paragraph, the fourth sentence originally read, ‘Based on their ages, all the patients in the case series would have been required to receive the BCG-Pasteur vaccine.’ This has been corrected to ‘Based on their ages, it is reasonable to assume that most patients in the case series would have been required to receive a BCG-Pasteur vaccine, although vaccination practices can vary, as seen with the patient residing in Australia. This variability highlights the importance of considering individual immunization histories when evaluating immune responses.’