INTRODUCTION:Pain is a common patient complaint during dermal filler injections. The primary objective of this study was to compare a new formulation of Juvéderm((R)) injectable gel with lidocaine (denoted as JUV + L) to commercially-available Juvéderm((R)) injectable gel without lidocaine (denoted as JUV) with respect to procedural pain scores in subjects desiring nasolabial fold (NLF) correction. METHODS: Subjects received randomized treatment with the lidocaine filler in one NLF and the filler without lidocaine in the other NLF. Investigators determined the appropriate formulation (Ultra or Ultra Plus) and volume of material to inject but were blinded as to which syringe contained lidocaine. Subjects rated procedural pain (pain during injection) using an 11-point scale within 30 min after receiving treatment in both NLFs and compared procedural pain between right and left NLFs using a 5-point scale. NLF severity was rated by both subjects and investigators before and 2 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: The mean difference on the procedural pain scale was 3.4 (P < 0.0001), and 93% of subjects found JUV + L to be less or slightly less painful than JUV. Improvement in NLF severity was comparable for both products. Common treatment site reactions (CTRs) of pain and tenderness were considerably less frequent for JUV + L than JUV while all other CTRs showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The dermal filler formulated with lidocaine is effective in reducing procedural pain during correction of facial wrinkles and folds while maintaining a similar safety and effectiveness profile to the filler without lidocaine.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Pain is a common patient complaint during dermal filler injections. The primary objective of this study was to compare a new formulation of Juvéderm((R)) injectable gel with lidocaine (denoted as JUV + L) to commercially-available Juvéderm((R)) injectable gel without lidocaine (denoted as JUV) with respect to procedural pain scores in subjects desiring nasolabial fold (NLF) correction. METHODS: Subjects received randomized treatment with the lidocaine filler in one NLF and the filler without lidocaine in the other NLF. Investigators determined the appropriate formulation (Ultra or Ultra Plus) and volume of material to inject but were blinded as to which syringe contained lidocaine. Subjects rated procedural pain (pain during injection) using an 11-point scale within 30 min after receiving treatment in both NLFs and compared procedural pain between right and left NLFs using a 5-point scale. NLF severity was rated by both subjects and investigators before and 2 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: The mean difference on the procedural pain scale was 3.4 (P < 0.0001), and 93% of subjects found JUV + L to be less or slightly less painful than JUV. Improvement in NLF severity was comparable for both products. Common treatment site reactions (CTRs) of pain and tenderness were considerably less frequent for JUV + L than JUV while all other CTRs showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The dermal filler formulated with lidocaine is effective in reducing procedural pain during correction of facial wrinkles and folds while maintaining a similar safety and effectiveness profile to the filler without lidocaine.
Authors: Gary Monheit; Kenneth Beer; Bhushan Hardas; Pearl E Grimes; Barry M Weichman; Vince Lin; Diane K Murphy Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Joel L Cohen; Alexander Rivkin; Steven Dayan; Ava Shamban; W Philip Werschler; Craig F Teller; Michael S Kaminer; Jonathan M Sykes; Susan H Weinkle; Julie K Garcia Journal: Aesthet Surg J Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.283