“Ozempic Face” in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature on GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Mediated Weight Loss and Analysis of Public Perceptions

Authors:
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have gained popularity after clinical trials demonstrated their weight-loss potential. The term “Ozempic® face” has been coined to describe the exaggerated volume loss from semaglutide therapy, resulting in advanced facial aging. Objectives: The authors of this study aim to review plastic surgery publications discussing GLP-1 receptor agonists and characterize the public's perception of the effect of these medications on weight loss. Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify articles discussing GLP-1 receptor agonist use in plastic surgery. Articles in non-English languages or on nonhuman subjects were excluded. Bias assessment was completed using standardized checklists. Google Trends was used to track public interest in these medications and their effect on face and body morphology. Results: Twenty-three articles were identified, revealing that (1) several injectable drugs are available for weight loss, (2) GLP-1 receptor agonists cause morphological changes resembling advanced aging, (3) surgical and nonsurgical options exist to address these changes, (4) adverse effects of these medications help guide perioperative management, and (5) important contraindications exist to their use. Online searches for “Ozempic® face” were linked to rising searches for “face filler” and “plastic surgeons.” Conclusions: As the unintended morphological changes of GLP-1 receptor agonists become increasingly reported, so does the public interest in seeking rejuvenation procedures. Although limited by study biases, this systematic review can help the plastic surgery community prepare for the rising needs of this patient population by understanding the risk and benefit profile of GLP-1 receptor agonists and developing clear clinical practice guidelines. Level of Evidence: 4 (Therapeutic):

This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit: