BACKGROUND: The periorbital region is a challenging area for injectable filler. Overcorrection and/or the use of unsuitable fillers may lead to unwanted results. As evidence for this region is limited, most physicians follow a trial and error approach. OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy, patient satisfaction, and safety of the HA E filler range in periorbital rejuvenation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multi-center, six-month, open-label study. Subjects could receive HA E Touch, HA E Classic, and HA E Deep for the treatment of tear troughs and periorbital lines at baseline, and an optional touch-up three weeks later. Global aesthetic improvement for both indications, periorbital wrinkle assessments (Lemperle Rating Scale), 3-D volume analysis (for tear troughs only), adverse events and injection site reactions were evaluated at each visit. A subject satisfaction questionnaire was performed three weeks after last injection. RESULTS: Overall, HA E Classic and Deep were infected for tear troughs, and HA E Touch for periorbital lines. Mean aesthetic improvement in tear troughs was 1.5-2 grades for both products at each post-baseline visit, and results of the clinical evaluation were confirmed by results of 3-D volume analysis. Improvements of periorbital lines in both aesthetic outcomes and wrinkle severity were around 1.5 grades at week 3, and close to 1 grade at month 6. The majority of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with their aesthetic outcome. Treatments of both indications were safe and well-tolerated, with only mild and transient injection site reactions reported. CONCLUSIONS: This HA E filler range is suitable for rejuvenation of the periorbital region, which leads to safe results, long-lasting efficacy and high levels of patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: The periorbital region is a challenging area for injectable filler. Overcorrection and/or the use of unsuitable fillers may lead to unwanted results. As evidence for this region is limited, most physicians follow a trial and error approach. OBJECTIVE: Assess the efficacy, patient satisfaction, and safety of the HA E filler range in periorbital rejuvenation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multi-center, six-month, open-label study. Subjects could receive HA E Touch, HA E Classic, and HA E Deep for the treatment of tear troughs and periorbital lines at baseline, and an optional touch-up three weeks later. Global aesthetic improvement for both indications, periorbital wrinkle assessments (Lemperle Rating Scale), 3-D volume analysis (for tear troughs only), adverse events and injection site reactions were evaluated at each visit. A subject satisfaction questionnaire was performed three weeks after last injection. RESULTS: Overall, HA E Classic and Deep were infected for tear troughs, and HA E Touch for periorbital lines. Mean aesthetic improvement in tear troughs was 1.5-2 grades for both products at each post-baseline visit, and results of the clinical evaluation were confirmed by results of 3-D volume analysis. Improvements of periorbital lines in both aesthetic outcomes and wrinkle severity were around 1.5 grades at week 3, and close to 1 grade at month 6. The majority of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with their aesthetic outcome. Treatments of both indications were safe and well-tolerated, with only mild and transient injection site reactions reported. CONCLUSIONS: This HA E filler range is suitable for rejuvenation of the periorbital region, which leads to safe results, long-lasting efficacy and high levels of patient satisfaction.