Literature DB >> 28032168

The Efficacy and Safety of HA IDF Plus (with Lidocaine) Versus HA IDF (Without Lidocaine) in Nasolabial Folds Injection: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Split-Face Study.

Jong-Hun Lee1, Seok-Hwan Kim2, Eun-Soo Park3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Injection-related pain of dermal fillers is a consistent and bothersome problem for patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation. Reducing the pain could improve overall patient satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the pain relief, efficacy, and safety of HA IDF plus containing lidocaine with HA IDF without lidocaine during correction of nasolabial folds (NLFs).
METHODS: Sixty-two subjects were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, split-face study of HA IDF plus and HA IDF for NLF correction. For split-face study, HA IDF plus was injected to one side of NLF, and HA IDF was injected to the other side. The first evaluation variable was the injection site pain measured using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). The second evaluation variables included the global aesthetic improvement scale, wrinkle severity rating scale, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Immediately after injection, 91.94% of subjects experienced at least 10 mm decrease in VAS scores at the side injected with HA IDF plus compared with HA IDF, and the rate of subjects is statistically significant. The two fillers were not significantly different in safety profile or wrinkle correction during the follow-up visit.
CONCLUSIONS: HA IDF plus significantly reduced the injection-related pain during NLFs correction compared with HA IDF without altering clinical outcomes or safety. Both HA IDF plus and HA IDF were considerably tolerated and most adverse reactions were mild and transient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Entities:  

Keywords:  Efficacy; HA IDF; HA IDF plus; Hyaluronic acid filler; Injection pain; Lidocaine; Nasolabial folds; Safety

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28032168     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-016-0769-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  4 in total

1.  Two Randomized Controlled Trials of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds.

Authors:  So Dam Yang; Seonghye Shin; Jiyoon Lee
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-07-23

2.  A Randomized, Active-Controlled, 52-Week Study of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Anteromedial Malar Region Augmentation.

Authors:  Chang-Hun Huh; Yunae Eom; So Dam Yang; Jung Won Shin; Kyle Koo-Il Seo
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-02-26

3.  Juvéderm Volift (VYC-17.5L), a Hyaluronic Acid Filler with Lidocaine, is Safe and Effective for Correcting Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects.

Authors:  Yun Xie; Qin Li; Zhanwei Gao; Jiaming Sun; Dong Li; Candice Harvey; Jiazhi Qu; Sean Snow; Qingfeng Li
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol       Date:  2022-02-16

4.  Expert Consensus on Hyaluronic Acid Filler Facial Injection for Chinese Patients.

Authors:  Hyoung-Jin Moon; Zhan-Wei Gao; Zhi-Qi Hu; Hang Wang; Xiao-Jun Wang
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-10-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.