Am J Clin Dermatol
DOI 10.1007/s40257-016-0237-x
REVIEW ARTICLE
Literature Review of Cosmetic Procedures in Men: Approaches
and Techniques are Gender Specific
Brandon E. Cohen1 • Sameer Bashey1 • Ashley Wysong1
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
Abstract The proportion of men receiving non-surgical
cosmetic procedures has risen substantially in recent years.
Various physiologic, anatomic, and motivational consid-
erations differentiate the treatments for male and female
patients. Nevertheless, research regarding approaches to
the male cosmetic patient is scarce. We sought to provide
an overview and sex-specific discussion of the most pop-
ular cosmetic dermatologic procedures pursued by men by
conducting a comprehensive literature review pertaining to
non-surgical cosmetic procedures in male patients. The
most common and rapidly expanding non-surgical inter-
ventions in men include botulinum toxin, filler injection,
chemical peels, microdermabrasion, laser resurfacing, laser
hair removal, hair transplantation, and minimally invasive
techniques for adipose tissue reduction. Important sex-
specific factors associated with each of these procedures
should be considered to best serve the male cosmetic
patient.
& Ashley Wysong
Ashley.Wysong@med.usc.edu
1 the establishment of cosmetic procedures as a social norm,
Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine,
University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Avenue,
Ezralow Tower 5301, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
Key Points
The number of male patients seeking cosmetic
dermatologic procedures has rapidly expanded in
recent years and continues to grow.
Key differences in desired outcomes and sex-specific
anatomy differentiate treatments for male and female
patients.
Further focus on sex-based differences in aesthetic
dermatology is warranted to best serve the male
patient.
1 Introduction
Over recent decades, the number of men interested in using
cosmetic medicine has increased significantly. Women
continue to receive the majority of aesthetic procedures,
but the current demand among men is substantial and
expanding [1–4]. According to the American Society of
Dermatologic Surgery, male patients received 10–11% of
all non-surgical cosmetic treatments in 2014 [5]. The
American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery reported
that over 1 million procedures involved male patients in
2014, corresponding to a 273% increase since the annual
surveys began in 1997 [6].
Proposed explanations for this trend include a desire to
appear more youthful and competitive in the workplace,
and the growing availability of non-surgical options
[2, 4, 7–10]. Men gravitate towards minimally invasive

procedures because of concerns about post-procedure
downtime and observable signs of a recent procedure
[3, 9]. Accordingly, the expansion of cosmetic interven-
tions in men is most striking when specifically examining
the rates of minimally invasive aesthetic procedures.
Dhaliwal and Friedman [7] reported that the rate of non-
surgical cosmetic procedures in men increased by 722%
between 1997 and 2008. Between 2010 and 2014, the use
of botulinum toxin in men increased by 84%, hyaluronic
acid fillers increased by 94%, and intense pulse light
treatments increased by 44% [6].
It is pertinent to recognize that the approach to male and
female cosmetic patients is not identical. Physiologic and
anatomic differences between sexes have practical impli-
cations for cosmetic interventions [1, 11–14]. For example,
men demonstrate a gradual loss of cutaneous and subcu-
taneous tissue over time, whereas women have a more
sudden decrease after menopause [13, 14]. Male skin has
several distinct characteristics, including a thicker epider-
mis and dermis, higher density of hair follicles, greater
sebum and sweat production, and an increased ratio of
muscle to subcutaneous tissue [1, 2, 15, 16]. Men also have
a larger forehead, lower-set horizontal eyebrows, thinner
lips, and a more pronounced chin and jawline (Fig. 1)
[10, 16]. These differences influence the manifestations of
Fig. 1 Sex differences in facial anatomy. Males demonstrate a greater forehead width and length, larger cranium, narrower cheeks, larger chin
and mandible, less pronounced zygoma, lower set eyebrows, and deeper rhytides
B. E. Cohen et al.
aging and the approach to cosmetic interventions. For
example, the increased thickness of male skin leads men to
develop rhytides at a later age; however, the more robust
muscle tone means they ultimately develop deeper wrin-
kles, often requiring more aggressive treatment [2]. Dif-
ferences also relate to rates of procedure complications.
Men are at higher risk of post-procedure bruising because
of their more dense facial vasculature [16]. They have also
been shown to be more susceptible to skin infections and
have slower wound healing than females receiving the
same aesthetic procedures [1, 12, 15].
Men have distinct motivating factors and treatment
preferences when pursuing aesthetic procedures. For
instance, men tend to be more concerned about discrete
bothersome areas than the overall aging appearance [2, 9].
Many seek to refine features but maintain a masculine
appearance in the process. In addition, men tend to find a
single day of multiple treatments preferable to treatments
spread out over multiple sessions.
Despite these distinctions, there is a scarcity of research,
and often little clinical focus, on the perspective of the
male cosmetic patient. Keaney and Alster [16] reviewed 17
trials involving botulinum toxin and reported that only two
studies included sex in the study design or as part of sub-
group analyses. Furthermore, women accounted for nearly
Cosmetic Procedures in Men
90% of the aggregate patient population among studies
considered.
This article provides an overview and sex-specific dis-
cussion of the most popular non-surgical cosmetic proce-
dures pursued by men, including botulinum toxin, filler
injection, chemical peels, microdermabrasion, laser resur-
facing, laser hair removal, hair transplantation, and mini-
mally invasive fat reduction. We also review evolving
trends in cosmetic procedures for men, discuss the indi-
cations for and approach to performing cosmetic inter-
ventions in men, and highlight relevant differences in
treatments between the sexes. We conducted a literature
search using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and
Science Direct databases using the search terms male, men,
gender, cosmetic dermatology, and/or aesthetic dermatol-
ogy. We considered all available prospective and retro-
spective studies and expert reviews pertaining to cosmetic
dermatologic procedures in men, with an emphasis on
prospective trials, and excluded articles involving invasive
surgical cosmetic procedures.
2 Cosmetic Procedures
2.1 Botulinum Toxin
Botulinum toxin injection is the most commonly performed
cosmetic procedure among men, increasing by 84% since
2010 [6]. Three US FDA-approved forms of botulinum
toxin are available in the USA: onabotulinumtoxinA (Bo-
toxÒ; Allergan, Irvine, CA, USA), abobotulinumtoxinA
(DysportÒ; Galderma USA, Fort Worth, TX, USA), and
incobotulinumtoxinA (XeominÒ; Merz, Frankfurt, Ger-
many). The commonly accepted equivalence dosage
between Botox/Xeomin and Dysport is 1.0 to 2.0–2.75
units.
The majority of studies involving botulinum toxin have
focused on female patients, but several trials have exam-
ined its use in men. Brandt et al. [17] investigated the
efficacy of 50 units of Dysport for moderate–severe
glabellar lines in 135 female and 23 male participants.
Treatment response was defined as an improvement from a
score of 2 or 3 (moderate or severe) to a score of 0 or 1
(none or mild) on an investigator-graded severity scale. In
a sex sub-analysis, women demonstrated a higher rate of
treatment response than men (93 vs. 67%). The authors
proposed that the 50 units of Dysport used in the study was
an insufficient dose in men because of the greater muscle
mass of the male face [17]. Carruthers and Carruthers [18]
investigated treatment with 20, 40, 60, or 80 units of Botox
in 80 men for the treatment of glabellar wrinkles and found
a dose-dependent relationship. Higher doses did not result
in an increase in adverse events [18]. Kane et al. [19]
administered various doses of Dysport based on glabellar
size and participant sex (50–70 units for women and 60–80
units for men) and similarly concluded that male patients
with greater muscle mass required larger doses. Taken
together, these studies suggest that relatively large doses of
botulinum toxin are safe and often necessary for adequate
response in men [16–18, 20].
Sex differences when treating the forehead have also
been reported. Botox doses of 15 units are adequate for
the female frontalis, but men often require 25 units or
more [21]. Female eyebrows typically contain an arch in
the mid lateral aspect of the eyebrow, while men have
lower-set horizontal eyebrows residing along the
supraorbital ridge (Fig. 2) [16, 22]. Accordingly, botuli-
num injection in the lateral eyebrows is avoided in
women but often performed in men to avoid a feminine
appearance [21].
Masseter muscle hypertrophy can be managed with
botulinum toxin to produce muscle atrophy and a leaner
facial structure. Typically, 25–40 units of Botox injected
into each side of the face is suggested [23, 24]; however, up
to 60 units per side may be required in male patients
[24, 25]. To lessen the risk of toxin diffusion to nearby
muscles, the initial injection volume should not exceed
1.5 ml [24]. Botulinum toxin is also commonly used in
men to reduce depressor anguli oris (DAO) muscle tone, as
excess DAO tone can create a fixed frowning appearance
[2, 26]. An initial dose of 2–5 units of Botox is recom-
mended, and care should be taken to avoid injection into
the depressor labii inferioris to minimize the risk of pro-
ducing an asymmetric smile [2, 26, 27].
2.2 Filler Injection
Cosmetic fillers are an increasingly popular technique for
non-invasive skin rejuvenation, volume replacement, and
soft tissue augmentation. In 2014, hyaluronic acid (HA)
fillers were the second most common non-surgical cos-
metic procedure obtained by men [6, 28]. The use of fillers
has increased over sixfold in men since 1997 and is
expected to continue to rise [8].
HA is the most prevalent filler material used in both men
and women [8, 29]. Several novel long-lasting injectables,
including polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and calcium
hydroxylapatite fillers, are becoming increasingly popular
in men, especially for the nasolabial folds [8, 30]. Perma-
nent fillers may be attractive for men who wish to minimize
the requirement for repeated treatments [30]. However,
patients receiving permanent fillers should be followed
closely for adverse events, such as the development of
nodules, edema, and granuloma, as the time course of
potential complications is more variable than with resorb-
able fillers [31].

Fig. 2 Sex differences in eyebrow shape. Males have lower-set, horizontal eyebrows lacking an arch in the lateral aspect
There are several key differences in the utilization of
fillers between men and women. Larger filler doses may
generally be required because men have thicker skin [20].
Compared with men, women prefer a fuller face, higher
cheeks, and a more accentuated sub-malar region [10].
Data previously published by our group show the typical
ratio of medial to lateral cheek tissue in women is 1:5
compared with 1:1 in men, measured objectively with
magnetic resonance imaging [13, 14]. Distribution and
placement of filler for the cheek area should account for
these anatomic differences to avoid overfilling of the malar
cheek and feminization of the male face (Fig. 3). In addi-
tion, men have thinner lips and a wider mouth than women,
which must be taken into account when performing lip
augmentation in men.
Fillers can be used for non-invasive rhinoplasty in
patients who wish to defer surgical intervention, have only
slight contour irregularities, or desire correction of post-
surgical asymmetry [32]. Limited filler volumes, ranging
from 0.1 to 0.4 ml of HA, are often described [32–34].
However, larger quantities may be considered in men to
accommodate the longer and wider male nose. Studies
assessing sex differences of the nose suggest that the aes-
thetically optimal male nose has a higher nasion, increased
nasolabial angle, and straighter profile than that of the
female nose [35, 36]. Lack of humps and a supra-tip break
B. E. Cohen et al.
are associated with more desirable nasal appearance in both
sexes [35, 36].
Another common use of fillers is for augmentation of the
male jawline. A prominent jawline is often considered an
attractive masculine trait [9, 10, 16]. In contrast, the female
face is associated with a softer jawline and an oval, less
square-shaped, face. Consequently, volume loss and skin
laxity along the jawline are frequent aesthetic concerns in
men. Filler may be injected into the mandibular angle to
produce a stronger posterior jawline or injected along the
length of the body of the mandible to augment the inferior
jawline [9, 37].
2.3 Chemical Peels
Chemical peels are a popular method for minimally inva-
sive skin resurfacing, and usage in men has increased by
128% since 2010 [6]. Superficial peels cause various
degrees of epidermis necrosis without involving the der-
mis, resulting in re-epithelialization and a more homoge-
nous appearance of the skin [3]. Superficial peels are often
used in males for minor photoaging, superficial hyperpig-
mentation, surface irregularities, pseudofolliculitis barbae,
and acne vulgaris [38, 39]. Medium-strength peels extend
into the papillary dermis and are useful for dyspigmenta-
tion, superficial rhytides, minor scarring, and actinic
Cosmetic Procedures in Men

Fig. 3 Sex differences in cheek

structure. Females have a fuller
face with a greater ratio of
lateral to medial cheek tissue

keratosis [38, 39]. However, the use of medium-depth peels Few sex-based differences require consideration when
is limited by a 1- to 2-week recovery period, as well as a using chemical peels. Men tend to prefer superficial peels
greater risk of prolonged erythema or dyspigmentation because of the limited associated downtime [40]. However,
[2, 3, 39]. since men have thicker and deeper wrinkles and a higher

degree of photo-damage, male skin may be more refractory
to the benefit of peels. In addition, the more sebaceous skin
and higher density of hair follicles may render male skin
more resistant to peeling. Consequently, men often require
more treatments or a higher concentration of peeling agents
than do women [39].
2.4 Microdermabrasion
Microdermabrasion is a well-established modality for the
management of photo-damage, scarring, rhytides, acne
vulgaris, and mild rhinophyma [3, 41, 42]. Microder-
mabrasion causes mechanical ablation of the epidermis and
superficial dermis through abrasion with aluminum oxide
or sodium hydroxide crystals in a hand-held close-looped
negative pressure system [41–43]. Multiple treatments are
necessary, typically at 1-month intervals [41].
In 2014, microdermabrasion was the fifth most common
non-surgical cosmetic procedure in men [6]. Benefits from
microdermabrasion may be especially apparent in men
because they undergo exfoliation procedures less regularly
than women and may have more skin debris. Prior to
treatment, male patients should be instructed to shave
3–4 h before facial procedures and refrain from shaving
again until 12 h after the procedure [42].
2.5 Laser and Light-Based Therapy
According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic
Surgery, the use of laser and light-based procedures in men
increased 9.4 times between 1997 and 2014 [6]. Certain
indications for laser treatment are more common in males,
including acne scars, periorbital rhytides, poikiloderma,
and rhinophyma. Men are generally less amenable to the
prolonged downtime associated with traditional ablative
lasers and often prefer treatment with fractional or non-
ablative devices [3]. Fractional lasers treat the skin in
discrete columns, which facilitates quicker recovery and
reduces the risk of adverse effects [3, 44]. As non-ablative
lasers leave the epidermis largely intact, they have a
favorable side effect profile. However, multiple treatment
sessions are necessary, and final treatment outcomes can be
modest compared with those of ablative lasers [44]. Intense
pulse light (IPL) is a useful non-ablative light-based ther-
apy for skin rejuvenation and poikiloderma and is associ-
ated with the minimal downtime demanded by many male
patients [45, 46]. However, because men have thickened
skin, additional passes or higher fluence may be required
with a non-ablative laser [9]. Several laser wavelengths can
also have off-target effects on the hair; therefore, the
treatment plan must include a discussion about the desire
for facial hair, and care must be taken to select the
appropriate laser treatment.
B. E. Cohen et al.
2.6 Laser Hair Removal
Laser hair removal was the third most common non-sur-
gical cosmetic procedure in men in 2014 [6]. As the aes-
thetic appeal of a hairless body has increased, the removal
of undesired body hair is a frequent practice among men
[47, 48]. Laser treatment, administered over multiple ses-
sions, has emerged as the leading method to permanently
remove or significantly reduce unwanted hair [49].
Lasers used for hair removal deliver wavelengths
selectively absorbed by melanin in the hair follicle,
resulting in follicle destruction. Common laser devices
used for hair removal include the Nd:YAG, diode, long-
pulse ruby, and long-pulse alexandrite lasers [49, 50]. The
Nd:YAG laser is associated with the lowest rates of post-
treatment erythema, dyspigmentation, purpura, and folli-
culitis and is safest for darker skin types [49–51]. Men
typically have thicker and more pigmented hair, and
therefore the fluence levels can be lower than those used in
women. The phototype of the patient is an important
consideration, as melanin in the surrounding skin can also
absorb laser energy, which can potentially result in dys-
pigmentation [2].
2.7 Hair Transplantation
Androgenetic alopecia affects up to one-half of men by the
age of 50 years [52]. Initial management includes minox-
idil solution and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors [53, 54]. In
patients who do not respond to first-line treatments and
camouflage, hair transplantation is an efficacious and
evolving option for hair restoration [55].
Hair transplantation takes advantage of the principle that
hair in the posterior occipital scalp is more durable and less
reactive to hormonal changes than hair in the frontal scalp
or vertex and will retain this characteristic after trans-
plantation [55]. Frontal and mid-frontal alopecia is most
amenable to hair transplantation, whereas the vertex
demonstrates more progressive loss [53].
The most common approach to hair transplantation is
known as follicular unit transplantation (FUT). An ellipti-
cal donor strip is removed from the occipital scalp, and one
to four hair follicle groups are separated and transplanted
through 1000–2000 created pores in areas of alopecia
[54, 55]. Follicular unit extraction (FUE) is an alternative
approach in which individual punches—rather than an
intact strip—are taken from the donor scalp [54]. FUE
results in reduced scarring from the donor area, which may
be preferable in men with shorter posterior hair. Disad-
vantages associated with FUE include a greater rate of hair
transection during harvesting and an inability to harvest as
many grafts, resulting in less dense transplanted hair [54].
Nonetheless, FUE is an increasingly popular option.
Cosmetic Procedures in Men
One modification to conventional hair transplantation is
laser-assisted hair transplantation (LHT), during which
recipient site channels are created using an ablative laser
[52, 56, 57]. Benefits of LHT include shorter procedure
duration, less trauma to the recipient’s scalp, and a reduced
risk of graft compression. However, it is also associated
with a modest delay in hair growth, increased crusting, and
higher costs [56].
One emerging modality for hair restoration is low-
level laser therapy (LLLT) using the Hair-Max
LaserCombÒ (Lexington International, Boca Raton, FL,
USA) [54, 58]. Several recent studies have demonstrated
promise using this novel approach to hair restoration. In
one trial, 35 patients underwent LLLT treatment for
androgenic alopecia. They were instructed to use the
Hair-Max LaserCombÒ at home for 5–10 min every
other day. After 6 months, hair count and tensile strength
had increased by 94 and 79%, respectively [58]. Jimenez
et al. [59] randomized 225 patients (103 male) with
androgenetic alopecia to treatments with the Hair-Max
LaserCombÒ or a sham device three times a week for
26 weeks. After this time, the treatment group demon-
strated a statistically significant increase in terminal hair
density with no reports of significant adverse effects
[59]. Similar results were reported in a separate sham
device controlled trial involving 110 patients [60]. LLLT
shows initial promise; however, larger randomized trials
are necessary to further confirm the efficacy of this novel
modality.
2.8 Minimally Invasive Fat Reduction: Laser-
Assisted Liposuction and Cryolipolysis
Liposuction was the most common surgical cosmetic
intervention in men in 2014 [6]. Despite this popularity, it
is associated with post-surgical downtime and recovery
[61]. Males have more fibrous tissue than females, resulting
in increased edema, bruising, and soreness after liposuction
[62]. Furthermore, liposuction of the lower abdomen can
result in scrotal bruising and edema [62]. Novel minimally
invasive modalities for the reduction of adiposity include
laser-assisted liposuction (LAL) and cryolipolysis, which
are among the fastest expanding cosmetic procedures in
men [5]. In fact, between 2012 and 2014, non-invasive fat-
reduction procedures increased 158% among male patients
[6].
LAL involves the introduction of an optical fiber
encased within a micro-cannula into the subcutaneous tis-
sue after tumescent anesthesia. Laser energy is then used to
thermally eliminate localized adipose deposits. Commonly
employed lasers for LAL include the non-ablative 1064 nm
Nd:YAG and 980 nm diode lasers [63, 64]. LAL is par-
ticularly suitable for compact areas such as the head and
neck and is associated with reduced tissue trauma, minimal
downtime, and—through thermally induced coagulation—
reduced blood loss and ecchymosis [61, 62, 64–66]. LAL
has also been shown to induce dermal reorganization,
resulting in skin retraction and limited residual excess skin
[63, 67].
Cryolipolysis is another emerging modality for fat
reduction that is growing in popularity among men. The
central principle of cryolipolysis is that, relative to sur-
rounding tissue, adipocytes are more sensitive to cold
exposure [68]. Therefore, cold temperatures can selectively
eliminate adipose tissue without damage to skin or other
structures. During the procedure, a segment of skin and
subcutaneous tissue is pulled between two cooling plates
and gradually cooled to nearly 0 °C [69]. After 2–4 weeks,
adipocytes begin to undergo apoptosis and phagocytosis
[70].
Dierickx et al. [71] reviewed the outcomes of cry-
olipolysis in 518 patients and reported an average 23%
reduction in fat thickness on caliper measurements after
3 months [71]. The most responsive sites were the abdo-
men, flank, and back. Adverse effects were limited to
erythema, edema, and transient soreness. One-third of
patients also experienced 1–2 months of hypoesthesia [71].
Dover et al. [72] reported a 22% reduction in flank adi-
posity on ultrasound exam 4 months after one treatment in
32 patients. Long-term outcomes suggest treated areas
retain a reduced propensity to develop adipose tissue, even
after future weight gain [68].
One noteworthy potential complication of cryolipolysis
is paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH), which describes
an unintended non-reversible increase of adipose tissue at
the treatment site. The development of PAH is rare, with an
estimated incidence of 0.05% [69]. Although the mecha-
nism of adipose hyperplasia is unknown, it has been sug-
gested that the incidence is higher in males [69].
One male-specific indication for fat reduction is pseu-
dogynecomastia, or excess breast adiposity. Treatment of
pseudogynecomastia has risen by 117% since 1997 and by
7.1% between 2103 and 2014 [6]. LAL has been shown to
be an effective option for the management of pseudogy-
necomastia. One case series of five patients treated with the
1064 nm Nd:YAG laser reported significant improvements
in pseudogynecomastia on ultrasound and computed
tomography (CT) scan assessment [73]. Cryolipolysis has
also been shown to be effective for excess breast adiposity.
In one study, 21 male patients with pseudogynecomastia
received two cycles of cryolipolysis spaced 60 days apart
[74]. At final follow-up, 95% of participants reported
visually recognizable improvement, and sonography
demonstrated a fat reduction of 1.6 mm. Of note, one
participant in this study developed PAH requiring surgical
management [74].

Table 1 Clinician-reported submental fat rating scale
Score Description
0 Absent submental convexity: no localized submental fat
evident
1 Mild submental convexity: minimal, localized submental fat
2 Moderate submental convexity: prominent, localized
submental fat
3 Severe submental convexity: marked, localized submental fat
4 Extreme submental convexity
2.9 Deoxycholic Acid
Excess submental adiposity is a frequent cosmetic concern
in men and can develop in individuals who are not other-
wise overweight. A pharmacologic submental contouring
method that uses the bile acid deoxycholic acid has
recently been approved by the FDA [75]. Injection with
deoxycholic acid, commercially available as KybellaÒ
(Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Westlake Village, CA,
USA), results in selective adipose membrane destruction
[76]. Surrounding cells are relatively more resistant to
deoxycholic acid because of a higher concentration of
membrane proteins than of adipocytes [77]. Deoxycholic
acid injections are typically delivered as multiple injections
of 2 mg/cm2 at 1-cm intervals over four to six sessions
[75, 76].
Several clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of
deoxycholic acid for excess submental adiposity. In one
trial, 360 patients (100 males) received 1 or 2 mg/cm2 or
placebo for the management of unwanted submental fat
[77]. Patients received four treatments approximately
28 days apart and were followed-up after 12 weeks.
Response to treatment was defined as at least a one-point
improvement on the Clinician-Reported Submental Fat
Rating Scale (CR-SMFRS) (Table 1). Treatment response
was reported to be 58.3 and 62.3% in patients treated with
1 and 2 mg/cm2, respectively. In comparison, 34.5% of
patients in the placebo group demonstrated response. No
excess skin laxity was observed in patients in the treatment
groups [77]. Rzany et al. [78] reported similar findings in
another randomized placebo-controlled trial in 363 patients
(85 male participants).
Common adverse effects associated with deoxycholic
acid injection are bruising, transient hypoesthesia, and
transient firmness of the treatment areas [75]. Care should
be taken to avoid inadvertent injection into the skin or in
proximity to large nerves, notably the marginal branch of
the mandibular nerve [75]. While pharmacologic submen-
tal contouring is a promising emerging treatment, long-
term durable outcomes are not yet known [76].
B. E. Cohen et al.
3 Conclusion
Male patients represent a distinct and expanding demo-
graphic in cosmetic dermatology. Men are especially well
suited for minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, as they
are generally less willing to undergo cosmetic surgery
associated with significant downtime and visible signs of a
recent cosmetic procedure. Men continue to be a neglected
demographic despite their booming interest in aesthetic
procedures. Considering the aging population, demand for
aesthetic procedures is expected to continue to rise [79].
Accordingly, further attention on the experience of the
male cosmetic patient, as well as sex-specific differences in
treatment, is warranted to best serve this growing
demographic.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Funding No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or
prepare this manuscript.
Conflict of interest Brandon E. Cohen, Sameer Bashey, and Ashley
Wysong have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the
content of this work.
References
1. Elsner P. Overview and trends in male grooming. Br J Dermatol.
2012;166(Suppl 1):2–5.
2. Muller C, Schill WB. Aesthetic andrology: skin care for men—
male cosmetics and cosmetic dermatologic procedures. Androl-
ogy for the clinician. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2006.
p. 621–33.
3. Poore SO, Shama L, Marcus B. Facial resurfacing of the male
patient. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2008;16(3):357–69, vii.
4. Sobanko JF, Imadojemu S, Miller CJ. Epidemiology of cosmetic
procedures: an update for dermatologists. Curr Derm Rep.
2012;1:4–13.
5. American Society of Dermatologic Surgery Survey 2013–2014.
https://www.asds.net/_Media.aspx?id=7744. Accessed 2 May
2016.
6. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Statistics: Com-
plete charts 1997–2014. http://www.surgery.org/media/statistics.
Accessed 2 May 2016.
7. Dhaliwal J, Friedman O. Injectables and fillers in male patients.
Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2008;16(3):345–55, vii.
8. Monheit GD, Prather CL. Hyaluronic acid fillers for the male
patient. Dermatol Ther. 2007;20(6):394–406.
9. De Maoi M, Rzany B. The male patient in aesthetic medicine.
Berlin: Springer; 2009.
10. Wieczorek IT, Hibler BP, Rossi AM. Injectable cosmetic pro-
cedures for the male patient. J Drugs Dermatol.
2015;14(9):1043–51.
11. Atkinson M. Exploring male femininity in thecrisis’: men and
cosmetic surgery. Body Soc. 2008;14(1):67–87.
12. Dao H Jr, Kazin RA. Gender differences in skin: a review of the
literature. Gend Med. 2007;4(4):308–28.
13. Wysong A, Joseph T, Kim D, Tang JY, Gladstone HB. Quanti-
fying soft tissue loss in facial aging: a study in women using
Cosmetic Procedures in Men
magnetic resonance imaging. Dermatol Surg.
2013;39(12):1895–902.
14. Wysong A, Kim D, Joseph T, MacFarlane DF, Tang JY, Glad-
stone HB. Quantifying soft tissue loss in the aging male face
using magnetic resonance imaging. Dermatol Surg.
2014;40(7):786–93.
15. Giacomoni PU, Mammone T, Teri M. Gender-linked differences
in human skin. J Dermatol Sci. 2009;55(3):144–9.
16. Keaney TC, Alster TS. Botulinum toxin in men: review of rele-
vant anatomy and clinical trial data. Dermatol Surg.
2013;39(10):1434–43.
17. Brandt F, Swanson N, Baumann L, Huber B. Randomized, pla-
cebo-controlled study of a new botulinum toxin type a for
treatment of glabellar lines: efficacy and safety. Dermatol Surg.
2009;35(12):1893–901.
18. Carruthers A, Carruthers J. Prospective, double-blind, random-
ized, parallel-group, dose-ranging study of botulinum toxin type
A in men with glabellar rhytids. Dermatol Surg.
2005;31(10):1297–303.
19. Kane MA, Brandt F, Rohrich RJ, Narins RS, Monheit GD, Huber
MB, et al. Evaluation of variable-dose treatment with a new U.S.
Botulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport) for correction of moderate to
severe glabellar lines: results from a phase III, randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Plast Reconstr Surg.
2009;124(5):1619–29.
20. Scherer MA. Specific aspects of a combined approach to male
face correction: botulinum toxin A and volumetric fillers. J Cos-
met Dermatol (Epub 20 July 2016).
21. Lam SM. Frontalis treatment with botox. Pearls and pitfalls in
cosmetic oculoplastic surgery. New York: Springer; 2008.
p. 320–1.
22. Flynn TC. Advances in the use of botulinum neurotoxins in facial
esthetics. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2012;11(1):42–50.
23. Park MY, Ahn KY, Jung DS. Botulinum toxin type A treatment
for contouring of the lower face. Dermatol Surg.
2003;29(5):477–83 (discussion 83).
24. Wu WT. Botox facial slimming/facial sculpting: the role of
botulinum toxin-A in the treatment of hypertrophic masseteric
muscle and parotid enlargement to narrow the lower facial width.
Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2010;18(1):133–40.
25. Flynn TC. Botox in men. Dermatol Ther. 2007;20(6):407–13.
26. Klein AW. Complications, adverse reactions, and insights with
the use of botulinum toxin. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29(5):549–56
(discussion 56).
27. Wise JB, Greco T. Injectable treatments for the aging face. Facial
Plast Surg. 2006;22(2):140–6.
28. Ballin AC, Brandt FS, Cazzaniga A. Dermal fillers: an update.
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2015;16(4):271–83.
29. DeLorenzi C. Complications of injectable fillers, part 2: vascular
complications. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(4):584–600.
30. Smith KC. New fillers for the new man. Dermatol Ther.
2007;20(6):388–93.
31. Christensen L, Breiting V, Janssen M, Vuust J, Hogdall E.
Adverse reactions to injectable soft tissue permanent fillers.
Aesthet Plast Surg. 2005;29(1):34–48.
32. Bray D, Hopkins C, Roberts DN. Injection rhinoplasty: non-
surgical nasal augmentation and correction of post-rhinoplasty
contour asymmetries with hyaluronic acid: how we do it. Clin
Otolaryngol. 2010;35(3):227–30.
33. de Lacerda DA, Zancanaro P. Filler rhinoplasty. Dermatol Surg.
2007;33 Suppl 2:S207–12 (discussion S12).
34. Humphrey CD, Arkins JP, Dayan SH. Soft tissue fillers in the
nose. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(6):477–84.
35. Springer IN, Zernial O, Nolke F, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo
PA, et al. Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(2):629–37.
36. Springer IN, Zernial O, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo PA,
Wolfart S. Nasal shape and gender of the observer: implications
for rhinoplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009;37(1):3–7.
37. Brandt FS, Cazzaniga A. Hyaluronic acid gel fillers in the man-
agement of facial aging. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(1):153–9.
38. Fulton JE, Porumb S. Chemical peels: their place within the range
of resurfacing techniques. Am J Clin Dermatol.
2004;5(3):179–87.
39. Landau M. Combination of chemical peelings with botulinum
toxin injections and dermal fillers. J Cosmet Dermatol.
2006;5(2):121–6.
40. Landau M. Chemical peels. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26(2):200–8.
41. Sadick NS, Finn NA. New applications for microdermabrasion
technology. Int J Cosmet Surg Aesthet Dermatol.
2002;4(1):19–26.
42. Microdermabrasion Savardekar P. Indian J Dermatol Venereol
Leprol. 2007;73(4):277–9.
43. Lloyd JR. The use of microdermabrasion for acne: a pilot study.
Dermatol Surg. 2001;27(4):329–31.
44. Geronemus RG. Fractional photothermolysis: current and future
applications. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38(3):169–76.
45. Bitter PH. Noninvasive rejuvenation of photodamaged skin using
serial, full-face intense pulsed light treatments. Dermatol Surg.
2000;26(9):835–42 (discussion 43).
46. Ross EV. Nonablative laser rejuvenation in men. Dermatol Ther.
2007;20(6):414–29.
47. Martins Y, Tiggemann M, Churchett L. Hair today, gone
tomorrow: a comparison of body hair removal practices in gay
and heterosexual men. Body Image. 2008;5(3):312–6.
48. Boroughs M, Cafri G, Thompson JK. Male body depilation:
prevalence and associated features of body hair removal. Sex
Roles. 2005;52(9–10):637–44.
49. Liew SH. Laser hair removal: guidelines for management. Am J
Clin Dermatol. 2002;3(2):107–15.
50. Nanni CA, Alster TS. Laser-assisted hair removal: side effects of
Q-switched Nd:YAG, long-pulsed ruby, and alexandrite lasers.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;41(2 Pt 1):165–71.
51. Battle EF Jr, Hobbs LM. Laser-assisted hair removal for darker
skin types. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(2):177–83.
52. Sadick NS, White MP. Basic hair transplantation: 2007. Dermatol
Ther. 2007;20(6):436–47.
53. Olsen EA, Messenger AG, Shapiro J, Bergfeld WF, Hordinsky
MK, Roberts JL, et al. Evaluation and treatment of male and
female pattern hair loss. J Am Acad Dermatol.
2005;52(2):301–11.
54. Avram MR, Rogers NE. Hair transplantation for men. J Cosmet
Laser Ther. 2008;10(3):154–60.
55. Rogers NE, Avram MR. Medical treatments for male and female
pattern hair loss. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(4):547–66 (quiz
67–8).
56. Grevelink JM. Laser hair transplantation. Dermatol Clin.
1997;15(3):479–86.
57. Grevelink JM, Brennick JB. Hair transplantation facilitated by
flashscanner-enhanced carbon dioxide laser. Oper Tech Oto-
laryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994;5(4):278–80.
58. Satino JL, Markou M. Hair regrowth and increased hair tensile
strength using the HairMax LaserComb for low-level laser ther-
apy. Int J Cosmet Surg Aesthet Dermatol. 2003;5(2):113–7.
59. Jimenez JJ, Wikramanayake TC, Bergfeld W, Hordinsky M,
Hickman JG, Hamblin MR, et al. Efficacy and safety of a low-
level laser device in the treatment of male and female pattern hair
loss: a multicenter, randomized, sham device-controlled, double-
blind study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15(2):115–27.
60. Leavitt M, Charles G, Heyman E, Michaels D. HairMax Laser-
Comb laser phototherapy device in the treatment of male
androgenetic alopecia: a randomized, double-blind, sham device-

controlled, multicentre trial. Clin Drug Investig.
2009;29(5):283–92.
61. Dudelzak J, Hussain M, Goldberg DJ. Laser lipolysis of the arm,
with and without suction aspiration: clinical and histologic
changes. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11(2):70–3.
62. Katz B, McBean J, Cheung JS. The new laser liposuction for
men. Dermatol Ther. 2007;20(6):448–51.
63. Reynaud JP, Skibinski M, Wassmer B, Rochon P, Mordon S.
Lipolysis using a 980-nm diode laser: a retrospective analysis of
534 procedures. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009;33(1):28–36.
64. Leclere FM, Trelles M, Moreno-Moraga J, Servell P, Unglaub F,
Mordon SR. 980-nm laser lipolysis (LAL): about 674 procedures
in 359 patients. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14(2):67–73.
65. Sun Y, Wu SF, Yan S, Shi HY, Chen D, Chen Y. Laser lipolysis
used to treat localized adiposis: a preliminary report on experi-
ence with Asian patients. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009;33(5):701–5.
66. Badin AZ, Moraes LM, Gondek L, Chiaratti MG, Canta L. Laser
lipolysis: flaccidity under control. Aesthet Plast Surg.
2002;26(5):335–9.
67. Goldman A. Submental Nd: yag laser-assisted liposuction. Lasers
Surg Med. 2006;38(3):181–4.
68. Bernstein EF. Longitudinal evaluation of cryolipolysis efficacy:
two case studies. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2013;12(2):149–52.
69. Jalian HR, Avram MM, Garibyan L, Mihm MC, Anderson RR.
Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia after cryolipolysis. JAMA Der-
matol. 2014;150(3):317–9.
70. Zelickson B, Egbert BM, Preciado J, Allison J, Springer K,
Rhoades RW, et al. Cryolipolysis for noninvasive fat cell
destruction: initial results from a pig model. Dermatol Surg.
2009;35(10):1462–70.
B. E. Cohen et al.
71. Dierickx CC, Mazer JM, Sand M, Koenig S, Arigon V. Safety,
tolerance, and patient satisfaction with noninvasive cryolipolysis.
Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(8):1209–16.
72. Dover J, Burns J, Coleman S. A prospective clinical study of non-
invasive cryolipolysis for subcutaneous fat layer reduction—in-
terim report of available subject data. Laser Surg Med. 2009;21:45.
73. Rho YK, Kim BJ, Kim MN, Kang KS, Han HJ. Laser lipolysis
with pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser for the treatment of
gynecomastia. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48(12):1353–9.
74. Munavalli GS, Panchaprateep R. Cryolipolysis for targeted fat
reduction and improved appearance of the enlarged male breast.
Dermatol Surg. 2015;41(9):1043–51.
75. Pharmaceutical Gohil K, Update Approval. P T.
2015;40(7):427–9.
76. Wollina U, Goldman A. ATX-101 for reduction of submental fat.
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(5):755–62.
77. Ascher B, Hoffmann K, Walker P, Lippert S, Wollina U,
Havlickova B. Efficacy, patient-reported outcomes and safety
profile of ATX-101 (deoxycholic acid), an injectable drug for the
reduction of unwanted submental fat: results from a phase III,
randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Eur Acad Dermatol
Venereol. 2014;28(12):1707–15.
78. Rzany B, Griffiths T, Walker P, Lippert S, McDiarmid J,
Havlickova B. Reduction of unwanted submental fat with ATX-
101 (deoxycholic acid), an adipocytolytic injectable treatment:
results from a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Br
J Dermatol. 2014;170(2):445–53.
79. Kosmadaki MG, Gilchrest BA. The demographics of aging in the
United States: implications for dermatology. Arch Dermatol.
2002;138(11):1427–8.