Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy
and lactation
M.K. Trivedi, BS, BA
a,b,
⁎, G. Kroumpouzos, MD, PhD
c,d
, J.E. Murase, MD
a,e
a
Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
b
University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
c
Department of Dermatology, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
d
Department of Dermatology, Medical School of Jundiaí, São Paulo, Brazil
e
Department of Dermatology, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Mountain View, California
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 30 November 2016
Received in revised form 21 January 2017
Accepted 21 January 2017
Available online xxxx
The safety of cosmetic procedures in patients who are pregnant and/or lactating is a complex clinical ques-
tion surrounded by uncertainty. Our objective is to consolidate data on the safety of commonly requested
cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation after a systematic review of the current literature to
guide evidence-basedcare in the future. A systematicsearch of the PubMed database was conductedfor ar-
ticles on cosmetic procedures duringpregnancy and lactation. Due to a lack of controlled trials, case reports
and series were considered. Minor procedures suchas shave, punch, snipping, and electrocautery are con-
sidered safe. With respect to chemical peels, glycolic and lactic acid peels are deemed safe; however,
trichloracetic and salicylic acid peels should be avoided or used with caution. Although safety data on bot-
ulinum toxin A is insufficient, the procedure may be safe because systemic absorption and placental trans-
fer are negligible. Sclerotherapy can be safe during pregnancy but must be avoided during the first
trimester and after week 36 of the pregnancy. Laser and light therapies have been considered generally
safe for patients with granulomatous conditions and condylomata. Epilation should be limited to waxing,
shaving, and topical treatments instead of permanent procedures. In patients who are lactating,most ther-
apies discussed above are safe but fat transfer, sclerotherapy, and tumescent liposuction are not recom-
mended. Better evidence is needed to make concrete recommendations on the safety of cosmetic
therapy during pregnancy and lactation but preliminary evidence suggests excellent safety profiles for
many commonly requested cosmetic procedures.
© 2017 Women'sDermatologic Society. Published by ElsevierInc. This is an open access articleunder the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
Background
The safety of cosmetic procedures in patients who are pregnant
and/or lactating is surrounded by uncertainty. The population of
women who are pregnant constitutes a significant proportion of
patients who undergo cosmetic procedures because they often
experience reversible and sometimes irreversible cosmetic changes
during pregnancy. Dermatologists and other practitioners often
defer cosmetic treatment until the postpartum period due to the
lack of controlled data. (See Table 1.)
There is some consensus on the general principles with regard to
cosmetic procedures during pregnancy. Patient counseling is essen-
tial because patients should be made aware of all reported and theo-
retical risks that are associated with cosmetic procedures during
pregnancy. A thorough discussion also should include the current
lack of evidence on the safety of many of these procedures.
Non-essential surgical procedures should be deferred until at least
the second trimester of the pregnancy. The left lateral decubitus posi-
tion is the recommended positioning during surgery because it en-
sures optimum dynamics of the blood circulation. Safe hemostasis
during surgery can be achieved with either radiation surgery or
electrocoagulation but care should be taken to minimize patient ex-
posure to smoke during these procedures. Patients who are pregnant
are generally recommended to avoid the application of certain cos-
metic topical agents with unclear safety data including tazarotene
International Journal of Women's Dermatology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
⁎Corresponding Author.
E-mail address: mtrivedi41@gmail.com (M.K. Trivedi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
2352-6475/© 2017 Women's Dermatologic Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Women's Dermatology
Please cite this article as: Trivedi MK, et al, A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation, (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
and hydroquinone. The treatment of physiologic gestational changes
that may rebound during gestation and improve postpartum such as
melasma, hypertrichosis, and striae is not recommended (Lee et al.,
2013).
Methods
We attempted to consolidate data on the safety of commonly re-
quested cosmetic procedures in the population of pregnant and lac-
tating women after a systematic review of the current literature to
update the existing knowledge about the subject matter and guide
evidence-based care in the future. A systematic review of the current
literature was conducted with use of the PubMed database. Search
terms included local anesthetics, chemical peels, botulinum toxin,
fillers, laser and light therapy, pregnancy, and safety, which were in-
cluded in several separate searches. The term epidural was excluded
and a filter for human-only studies was applied. In combination, a
total of 330 results were manually sorted to exclude articles that
were unrelated to the topic. A total of 25 articles were extracted
and reviewed. Due to a lack of controlled trials, individual case re-
ports and commentaries were included in the review. Prior review
literature including papers by Goldberg and Maloney (2013) and
Lee et al. (2013) was also referenced.
Results
Local and topical anesthetic drugs
Injectable anesthetic drugs
The main concerns when using injectable anesthetic drugs in pa-
tients who are pregnant include the amount of placental transfer and
possibility of teratogenicity (Richards and Stasko, 2002). Heinonen
et al. (1977) demonstrated the relative safety of lidocaine, benzo-
caine, propoxycaine, and tetracaine use during the first trimester of
Table 1
Key recommendations on the safety of cosmetic procedure on the basis of current evidence
Cosmetic Procedure/Related
Procedure
Key Recommendations Key Studies
Injectable Anesthetic Drugs Lidocaine: Pregnancy category B, considered relatively safe to use during pregnancy
at doses used in dermatological procedures.
Benzocaine, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine, tetracaine: Pregnancy category C,
no studies to adequately define risk during pregnancy.
Heinonen et al., 1977
Hagai et al., 2015
Moore, 1998
Richards and Stasko, 2002
Topical Anesthetic Drugs 2.5% lidocaine/prilocaine: Pregnancy category B, considered safe. Avoid ocular surfaces.
Benzocaine: Pregnancy category C, methemoglobinemia in infants.
Tetracaine: Pregnancy category C, preferred for eyelid/periocular procedures.
Guay, 2009
Lee et al., 2013 (Review)
Minor Procedures Snipping, shaving, liquid nitrogen therapy, removal of hemagiomas with electrocautery
or radiation surgery: Considered safe, minimal blood loss/local anesthesia.
N/A
Chemical Peels Glycolic acid peels: Relatively safe, limited dermal penetration.
Lactic acid peels: Reports of safe use for gestational acne, limited dermal penetration.
Salicyclic acid peels: Pregnancy category C, significant dermal penetration, limit use
to small areas of coverage.
Jessner’s solution and TCA peel: Use with caution, Jessner’s contains salicylic acid,
TCA in maternal urine correlated with fetal growth retardation although TCA used
to treat genital condylomata in pregnancy safely.
Andersen, 1998
Lee et al., 2013
Bozzo et al., 2011
James et al., 2008
Zhou et al., 2012
Schwartz et al., 1988
Neuromodulators Botulinum toxin A: Multiple case reports suggest no harm to fetus in either cosmetic
botulinum toxin or other medical indications (migraine prophylaxis, achalasia,
cervical dystonia) in majority of patients.
Miscarriages reported in two patients in two individual reports but relation to
toxin injection unclear.
High doses of onabotulinum toxin (N600 U) associated with systemic weakness.
Not enough evidence for concrete recommendations. If cosmetic botulinum toxin
is pursued during pregnancy, consent forms should list pregnancy as contraindication.
Tan et al., 2013
Hooft et al., 2015
Wataganara et al., 2009
Robinson and Grogan, 2014
Bodkin et al., 2005
Newman et al., 2004
de Oliveira Monteiro, 2006
Morgan et al., 2006
Fillers No concrete evidence and no cases that report use of fillers during pregnancy.
Definitive recommendations cannot be made at this time.
N/A
Sclerotherapy First trimester and after week 36: Absolute contraindications to therapy.
One study and several case reports demonstrated no adverse fetal outcomes
when sclerotherapy was pursued during pregnancy.
Rabe and Pannier, 2010
Abramowtiz, 1973
Reich-Schupke et al., 2012
Laser and Light Therapy No concrete recommendations can be made for use of lasers for cosmetic procedures.
Carbon dioxide and neodymium-doped YAG lasers have been used safely to treat
genital condylomata in pregnant patients in several reports.
Holmium: YAG and pulse-dye lasers have been used successfully and safely to
treat urolithiasis during pregnancy.
Treatment of pyogenic granulomas with laser therapy has been pursued safely.
Schwartz et al., 1988
Adelson et al., 1990 Woźniak et al., 1995
Gay et al., 2003
Buzalov and Khristakieva, 1994
Adanur et al., 2014
Carlan et al., 1995
Lee et al., 2013
Epilation Permanent hair removal is not recommended during pregnancy because of the
lack of safety data. Patients are advised to wax, shave, and use depilatory creams.
N/A
CO2, xxx; N/A, not available; TCA, tricholoracetic acid; YAG, yttrium aluminum garnet.
2MK. Trivedi et al. / International Journal of Women's Dermatology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Trivedi MK, et al, A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation, (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
a pregnancy in a study that reported no increase in the rate of birth
anomalies for 293 women. However, it should be noted that fetuses
who were exposed to mepivacaine during the first trimester had
twice the risk of congenital abnormalities compared with control
subjects (Heinonen et al., 1977). Hagai et al. (2015) evaluated the
rate of major anomalies in a 6-year comparative observational
study of 210 patients who were exposed to dental local anesthetic
drugs and of whom half of the patient group was exposed during
the first trimester of the pregnancy. The rate of major congenital
malformations in the group of exposed patients was 4.8% versus
3.3% in the control population (794 patients) but the difference was
not statistically significant (Hagai et al., 2015).
Lidocaine is a category B drug with a long history of uneventful
use during pregnancy because the fetus can metabolize lidocaine
that crosses the placental barrier (Kuhnert et al., 1979, 1986). The
major concerns of lidocaine use during pregnancy are the accidental
arterial injection and high-dose use of the agent as these two scenar-
ios can result in an increased risk of fetal cardiac and central nervous
system toxicity. Although lidocaine is found in fillers and used in
many dermatology surgical procedures, the doses that are employed
are far lower than the recommended maximum subcutaneous dos-
age of 4.5 mg/kg or 300 mg in the United States (Lee et al., 2013).
Fayans et al. (2010) noted that vasoconstrictor use can reduce the
toxicity of local anesthetic drugs by localizing the agent to the area
of delivery and is recommended. Concerns arise from the serious
risk of uterine artery spasms with the administration of increased
doses of epinephrine. However, the doses that are used in dermato-
logic surgeries are relatively low and have not been causally associat-
ed with this side effect (Richards and Stasko, 2002).
Moore conducted a large study in 1998 of local anesthetic drugs in
patients who were pregnant and underwent dental p rocedures. The re-
sults of this study labeled bupivacaine and mepivacaine as category C
drugs because of concerns of fetal bradycardia and preterm labor in
the case of mepivacaine use (Moore, 1998; Richards and Stasko, 2002).
Topical anesthetic drugs
The most common topical agents that are used during dermato-
logic procedures include benzocaine, tetracaine, and lidocaine 2.5%/
prilocaine 2.5% cream. Benzocaine has been labeled as a category C
drug because of the risk of methemoglobinemia in the infant. This is
supported by a study of 242 cases of methemoglobinemia that were
linked to the use of a local anesthetic drug (Guay, 2009; Lee et al.,
2013). Methemoglobinemia is also of concern when used in high
doses of prilocaine. However, 2.5% lidocaine or prilocaine is consid-
ered safe as long as ocular surfaces are avoided because both agents
are classified as a pregnancy category B drug (Lee et al., 2013). Tetra-
caine is classified as a pregnancy category C drug but is the preferred
local anesthetic drug for periocular and eyelid procedures because of
its lower risk of corneal irritation (Lee et al., 2013).
Minor procedures
The most common minor procedures include skin tag removal
with snipping, shaving, or cryotherapy, removal of other benign le-
sions such as seborrheic keratoses and dermatosis papulosa nigra,
shave or punch removal of nevi, and removal of hemangiomas with
electrocautery or radiation surgery. These procedures have a long
safety record in patients who are pregnant.
Chemical peeling
The most common chemical peels include procedures with
glycolic acid, lactic acid, salicylic acid, Jessner, and tricholoracetic
acid. There is also a lack of safety data with regard to this modality.
Glycolic acid peels
Peels with glycolic acid at concentrations that range from 30% to
70% induce epidermolysis and desquamation (Fabbrocini et al.,
2009). Although there are insufficient safety data available, these
peels are generally considered safe because of negligible dermal
penetration (Andersen, 1998).
Lactic acid peels
Lactic acid peels induce keratolysis. Lactic acid 2% has been anec-
dotally used to treat gestational acne with no reported fetal risks and
has shown negligible dermal penetration.
Salicylic acid peels
Salicyclic acid, which is classified as a pregnancy category C drug,
is a beta-hydroxy acid with comedolytic and keratolytic activity
(Fabbrocini et al., 2009). This acid can have significant dermal pene-
tration of up to 25% if large areas are treated or when it is applied
under occlusion (Lee et al., 2013). However, the reproductive out-
comes of patients who are pregnant and treated with low doses of
oral aspirin were studied and no significant effects on the health of
the fetus were reported (Bozzo et al., 2011; James et al., 2008). It is
recommended that if salicylic acid is used to treat patients who are
pregnant, the area of coverage should be limited.
Other peels
A Jessner peel is a combination of resorcinol (i.e., a skin-lightening
agent), salicylic acid, and lacticacid. Again, there is a lack of reports on
Jessner peels duringpregnancy. Sincethis peel contains salicylic acid,
it should beused cautiously because of the risks mentioned previous-
ly. Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) peels should also be used with caution
because of the possible dermal penetration as this agent can be
absorbed through ocular and oral mucosal surfaces (Lee et al.,
2013). Zhou et al. (2012) correlated high levels of maternal urinary
TCA levels with low birth weight in a cohort of 398 women, which
suggests that this compound may contribute to fetal growth retarda-
tion. However, TCA has been safely used to treat genital condylomata
in patients who are pregnant (Lee et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 1988).
Neuromodulators
Botulinum toxin type A has both cosmetic and medical applica-
tions (Tan et al., 2013). Current data suggest but not entirely confirm
that the toxin does not attain significant systemic concentrations if
correctly injected intramuscularly or intradermally. Furthermore,
the size of the toxin molecule makes it unlikely to cross the placental
barrier (Tan et al., 2013). There are no clinical trials on the effects of
cosmetic botulinum toxin use in patients who are pregnant. Howev-
er, there are a number of case reports in which the toxin has been
used for various medical procedures in patients who are pregnant
without adverse outcomes to the fetus. Two recent case reports dem-
onstrated the safety of botulinum toxin A to treat achalasia in women
who were pregnant.
Hooft et al. (2015) reported the administration of an
intrasphincteric injection of botulinum toxin A at 14 weeks of gesta-
tion with no adverse fetal outcomes and otherwise healthy term de-
liveries. Wataganara et al. (2009) reported a similar case where
botulinum toxin A was injected at 33 weeks of gestation to treat
persistent achalasia and subsequent malnutrition. Again, no adverse
outcomes to the fetus were reported and noevidence of infantneuro-
muscular blockade was noted at 5 days postpartum (Wataganara
et al., 2009). Robinson and Grogan (2014) reported on the safe ad-
ministration of onabotulinum toxin A at 18 weeks of gestation to
treat migraine prophylaxis in a woman with refractory migraine
headaches. No adverse effects were reported in the infant who was
followed for 6.5 years (Robinson and Grogan, 2014).
3MK. Trivedi et al. / International Journal of Women's Dermatology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Trivedi MK, et al, A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation, (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
Bodkin et al. (2005) reported two cases of inadvertent botulinum
toxin A injection during the first trimester of pregnancy in patients
who were treated for cervical dystonia. One patient who had a prior
history of miscarriages had a miscarriage at 10 weeks at which time
she was noted to have a twin pregnancy (Bodkin et al., 2005). Newman
et al. (2004) reported the case of a woman with severe cervical dysto-
nia who was treated with botulinum toxin injection throughout four
consecutive pregnancies. No complications were reported with the de-
livery or health of any of her four children (Newman et al., 2004).
Two cases of cosmetic use of botulinum toxin were reported by de
OliveiraMonteiro (2006) in two women at6 and 5 weeks of gestation
with no fetal adverse events. A 2006 survey of 900 physicians that
was conducted by Morgan et al. (2006) ascertained that 12 physi-
cians had experiences with incidental botulinum toxin injection in
16 patients who were pregnant. Only one patient with a history of
spontaneous abortions experienced a miscarriage after injection of
botulinum toxin (Morgan et al., 2006). There is concern that high
doses (N600 U) of onabotulinum toxin is associated with cases of sys-
temic weakness (Lee et al., 2013). However, doses that are used in
cosmetic procedures are usually less than 100 units.
Although the above cases demonstrate the general safety of botu-
linum toxin A, there is still insufficient data to make concrete recom-
mendations on whether cosmetic botulinum toxin procedures
should be conducted in women who are pregnant. However, it
should be noted that if patients who are pregnant are inadvertently
injectedwith botulinum toxin duringthe first trimester of pregnancy,
efforts should be made by theprovider to alleviate patient anxiety be-
cause of the current lack of evidence on adverse outcomes on the
fetus in published case literature. If patients who are pregnant re-
quest a cosmetic botulinum toxin procedure, consent forms should
state pregnancy as a contraindication to cosmetic botulinum toxin A
treatment.
Fillers
There are 21 fillers that have been approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration including collagen, hyaluronic acid, calcium hy-
droxylapatite, and poly-L-lactic acid (Chacon, 2015). There are no re-
ported safety data on the use of cosmetic fillers during pregnancy.
Adverse events that are associated with the use of fillers in the gener-
al population include most commonly injection site reactions and
rarely delayed onset foreign body granulomas, nodule formation,
vascular compromise, hypersensitivity reactions, and cellulitis (Lolis
et al., 2015). Because of the lack of safety evidence in patients who
are pregnant, recommendations on the use of fillers in this popula-
tion cannot be definitive. Steps should be taken to avoid the adverse
events as discussed previously in any patient population. The injector
should consider the potential risks from inadvertent arterial injection
of lidocaine mixed with the filler.
Sclerotherapy
Varicose veins that develop during pregnancy have a high proba-
bility of spontaneous improvement postpartum. Therefore, it is advis-
able to wait 6 to 12 months after pregnancy prior to pursuing this
treatment. There are very limited data on the safety of sclerosing so-
lutions in women who are pregnant. However, these solutions can
cross the placenta and sclerotherapy is an absolute contraindication
in the first trimester and after week 36 of a pregnancy (Rabe and
Pannier, 2010). In 1973, Abramovitz demonstrated that there was
no difference in pregnancy outcomes between 45 patients who
were treated with sclerotherapy compared with 56 control patients
(Abramowtiz, 1973). In 2015, Reich-Schupke and colleagues demon-
strated that there was no increased riskof adverse fetal outcomes and
evidenced their findings with several case reports in which common
sclerotherapy agents were used inadvertently during pregnancy
(Reich-Schupke et al., 2012).
Laser and light therapy
The cosmetic use of lasers hasnot been studied in women whoare
pregnant.However, lasershave been used safelyto treat medical con-
ditions in patients who are pregnant. The safety of carbon dioxide la-
sers in the treatment of genital condylomata in patients who are
pregnant is supported by several studies (Adelson et al., 1990; Gay
et al., 2003; Schwartz et al., 1988; Woźniak et al., 1995).
Neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet lasers have also been
safely used to treat genital condylomata in patients who are pregnant
(Buzalov and Khristakieva, 1994). Laser therapy for use in lithotripsy
in women who are pregnant has also been safely pursued. Adanur
et al. (2014) demonstrated the safety of a holmium yttrium alumi-
num garnetlaser to successfully and safely treat ureteral stones in dif-
ferent locations. Carlan et al. (1995) published a case report in which
pulsed dye laser was used to successfully treat symptomatic urolith-
iasis in a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant. Several other case re-
ports also suggest that acne and pyogenic granulomas have been
safety treated with laser therapy during pregnancy (Lee et al., 2013).
Laser therapy is relatively safe in patients who are pregnant when
employed for the treatment of various medical conditions. However,
laser and intense pulsed light therapy are not indicated for cosmetic
procedures during pregnancy due to the lack of safety data.
Epilation
Permanent hair removal by means of laser therapy or electrolysis
is generally not recommended during pregnancy due to the lack of
safety data. There is a theoretical concern about electrolysis because
amniotic fluid is a conductor of galvanic current. Patients are recom-
mended to treat excess hair growth with waxing, shaving, and depil-
atory creams during pregnancy.
Patients who are lactating
There are very few studies and reports on the safety of cosmetic
procedures in patients who are lactating. The main concern of pursu-
ing any modality in patients who are lactating is the systemic absorp-
tion of agents and subsequent incorporation into breast milk, which
can affect neonatal growth and development. Lee et al. (2013) sum-
marized that most cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin A,
chemical peeling, and lasers are safe to use during lactation since
there is low concern for significant systemic absorption of any of
the agents used in these procedures. Procedures which necessitate
the redistribution or removal of fat such as fat transfer or tumescent
liposuction are not recommended. Sclerotherapy should also be
avoided during lactation (Lee et al., 2013). Generally, hypertonic sa-
line solutions that are used in sclerotherapy are safe but there are
no data on whether other sclerosing solutions are excreted in breast
milk, which has led to the recommendation to avoid this therapy
while breastfeeding. However, anecdotally, some women have pur-
sued this therapy and continued breastfeeding with pumping and
discarding the breast milk in the first 48 hours after treatment. Nev-
ertheless, there are no reportson the outcomes and/or complications
or success rates of this methodology. Therefore, the safety of this pro-
cedure during lactation cannot be meaningfully commented on at
this time.
Discussion
The available evidence indicates promising safety profiles for
many commonly used cosmetic procedures. Although unnecessary
4MK. Trivedi et al. / International Journal of Women's Dermatology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Trivedi MK, et al, A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation, (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
surgical procedures should be avoideduntil thesecond trimester of a
pregnancy, judicious use of lidocaine with epinephrine and topical
prilocaine/lidocaine preparations is safe in patients who are preg-
nant. Minor procedures such as superficial punch and shave biopsies
or lesion removal are deemed safe because of their minimally inva-
sive nature and long safety record. Glycolic acid and lactic acid peels
are most likely safe to use due to the limited dermal penetration
but solutions that contain salicylic acid should be used with caution
due to the higherrates of absorption.Trichloroacetic acid has been as-
sociated with low infant birth weight and these peels should be used
with caution, especially because of the risk of dermal penetration.
Botulinum toxin A has been used safely in patients who are pregnant
for various medical conditions and cosmetic purposes as evidenced
by multiple case reports and series. There is little evidence to support
the safety of fillers during pregnancy. Sclerotherapy should not be
considered hastily in patients who are pregnant since varicose veins
may improve postpartum. Laser and light therapy seems to be safe
for the treatment of genital condylomata and ureteral calculi in pa-
tients who are pregnant. However, the lack of safety evidence in a
cosmetic context prevents a concrete recommendation on laser and
light therapy during pregnancy. Because excess body hair growth
may resolve postpartum, temporary epilation treatments are recom-
mended during pregnancy.
References
Abramowtiz I. The treatment of varicose veins in pregnancy by empty vein compres-
sive sclerotherapy. S Afr Med J 1973;47:607–10.
Adanur S, Ziypak T, Bedir F, Yapanoglu T, Aydin HR, Yilmaz M, et al. Ureteroscopy and
holmium laser lithotripsy: Is this procedure safe in pregnant women with ureteral
stones at different locations? Arch Ital Urol Androl 2014;86:86–9.
Adelson MD, Semo R, Baggish MS, Osborne NG. Laser vaporization of genital condylo-
mata in pregnancy. J Gynecol Surg 1990;6:257–62.
Andersen FE. Final report on the safety assessment of glycolic acid, ammonium, calci-
um, potassium, and sodium glycolates, methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl glycolates,
and lacticacid, ammonium, calcium, potassium, sodium, and TEA-lactates, methyl,
ethyl, isopropyl, and butyl lactates, and lauryl, myristyl, and cetyl lactates. Int J
Toxicol 19 98;17:1–241.
Bodkin CL, Maurer KB, Wszolek ZK. Botulinum toxin type A therapy during pregnancy.
Mov Disord 2005;20:1081–2.
Bozzo P, Chua-Gocheco A, Einarson A. Safety of skin care products during pregnancy.
Can Fam Physician 2011;57:665–7.
Buzalov S, Khristakieva E. The treatment of neglected cases of condylomata acuminata
in pregnant women with the Nd: Yag laser. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 1994;34:38–9.
Carlan SJ, Schorr SJ, Ebenger MF, Danna PA, Anibarro GB. Laser lithotripsy in pregnan-
cy. A case report. J Reprod Med 1995;40:74–6.
Chacon AH. Fillers in dermatology: From past to present. CUTIS 2015;96:E17–9.
de Oliveira Monteiro E. Botulinum toxin and pregnancy. Skinmed 2006;5:308.
Fabbrocini G, De Padova MP, Tosti A. Chemical peels: What’s new and what isn’tnew
but still works well. Facial Plast Surg 2009;25:329–36.
Fayans EP, Stuart HR, Carsten D, Ly Q, Kim H. Local anesthetic use in the pregnant and
postpartum patient. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:697–713.
Gay C, Terzibachian JJ, Gabelle C, Reviron S, Ramanah R, Mougin C. Carbon dioxide laser va-
porization of genital condyloma in pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2003;31:214–9.
Goldberg D, Maloney M. Dermatologic surgery and cosmetic procedures during preg-
nancy and the postpartum period. Dermatol Ther 2013;26:321–30.
Hagai A, Diav-Citrin O, Shechtman S, OrnoyA. Pregnancy outcome afterin utero expo-
sure to local anesthetics as part of dental treatment: A prospective comparative
cohort study. J Am Dent Assoc 2015;146:572–80.
Heinonen OP, Slone D, Shapiro S. Birth defects and drugs in pregnancy. Littleton: Pub-
lishing Sciences Group; 1977.
Hooft N, Schmidt ES, Bremner RM. Achalasia in pregnancy: Botulinum toxin A injection of
lower esophageal sphincter. Case Rep Surg 2015 [(Internet, cited 2016 November).
Available from: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/cris/2015/328970/].
Guay J. Methemoglobinemia related to local anesthetics: A summary of 242 episodes.
Anesth Analg 2009;108:837–45.
James AH, Brancazio LR, Price T. Aspirin and reproductive outcomes. Obstet Gynecol
Surv 2008;63:49–57.
Kuhnert BR, Knapp DR, Kuhnert PM, Prochaska AL. Maternal, fetal, and neonatal me-
tabolism of lidocaine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979;26:213–20.
Kuhnert BR, Philipson EH, Pimental R, Kuhnert PM, Zuspan KJ, Syracuse CD. Lidocaine
disposition in mother, fetus, and neonate after spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg
1986;65:13 9–44.
Lee KC, Korgavkar K, Dufresne RG, Higgins HW. Safety of cosmetic dermatologic pro-
cedures during pregnancy. Dermatologic Surg 2013;39:1573–86.
Lolis M, Dunbar SW, Goldberg DJ, Hansen TJ, MacFarlane DF. Patient safety in proce-
dural dermatol ogy: Part II. Safety re lated to cosmetic pro cedures. J Am Acad
Dermatol 2015;73:15–24.
Moore PA. Selecting drugs for the pregnant dental patient. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:
1281–6.
Morgan JC, Iyer SS, Moser ET, Singer C, Sethi KD. Botulinum toxin A during preg-
nancy: A survey of treating physicians. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;
77:117–9.
Newman WJ, Davis TL, Padaliya BB, Covington CD, Gill CE, Abramovitch AI, et al. Bot-
ulinum toxin type A therapy during pregnancy. Mov Disord 2004;19:1384–5.
Rabe E, Pannier F. Sclerotherap y of varicose veins with polidocanol ba sed on the
guidelines of the German Society of Phlebology. Dermatol Surg 2010;36:968–75.
Reich-Schupke S, Leiste A, Moritz R, Altmeyer P, Stücker M. Sclerotherapy in an unde-
tected pregnancy - a catastrophe? Vasa 2012;41:243–7.
Richards KA, Stasko T. Dermatologic surgery and the pregnant patient. Dermatol Surg
2002;28:24 8–56.
Robinson AY, Grogan PM. OnabotulinumtoxinAsuccessfully usedas migraine prophy-
laxis during pregnancy: A case report. Mil Med 2014;179:e703–4.
Schwartz DB, Greenberg MD, Daoud Y, Reid R. Genital condylomas in pregnancy: Use
of trichloroacetic acid and laser therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:1407–16.
Tan M, Kim E, Koren G, Bozzo P. Botulinum toxin type A in pregnancy. Can Fam Phy-
sician 2013;59:1183–4.
Wataganara T, Leelakusolvong S, Sunsaneevithayakul P, Vantanasiri C. Treatment of
severe achalasia during pregnancy with esophagoscopic injection of botulinum
toxin A: A case report. J Perinatol 2009;29:637–9.
Woźniak J, Szczepańska M, Opala T, Pisarska-Krawczyk M, Wilczak M, Pisarski T. Use
of CO2 laser in the treatment of condylomata acuminata of the anogenital region
in pregnant women. Ginekol Pol 1995;66:103–7.
Zhou WS, Xu L, Xie SH, Li YL, Li L, Zeng Q, et al. Decreased birth weight in relation to
maternal urinary trichloroacetic acid levels. Sci Total Environ 2012;416:105–10.
5MK. Trivedi et al. / International Journal of Women's Dermatology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Trivedi MK, et al, A review of the safety of cosmetic procedures during pregnancy and lactation, (2017), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.01.005
