OBJECTIVE: In the article, comparison of the hyaluronic acid (HA) and autologous fat is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in correction of the nasolabial folds (NLFs). METHODS: From November 2012 to December 2015, a single-blinded, randomized study was conducted. Sixty-two patients were included in the study, and 57 of them completed the whole procedure. The patients were randomly allocated to receive the treatments of HA or fat in both NLFs. The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) were used for assessment. Efficacy was assessed using two parameters: evaluation of final improvement by blinded evaluator and patient-self using photographs. The effectiveness endpoint was improvement of scores at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from baseline. The adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: In the blinded evaluator scores for NLF in accordance with WSRS, there were no significant differences between the two methods within 9 months. A statistically significant difference between the lipoinjection and HA groups was found at 12-month follow-up period. Subjects' self-assessment was similar to the results seen for the evaluator scores. The difference of AEs between the HA and fat group was obvious in the early stage of recovery. In the later stage, the AEs of the HA and fat group were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both HA gel and autologous fat provide augmentation of NLFs. The magnitude and duration of NLF correction appear to be similarly effective and safe within a period.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In the article, comparison of the hyaluronic acid (HA) and autologous fat is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in correction of the nasolabial folds (NLFs). METHODS: From November 2012 to December 2015, a single-blinded, randomized study was conducted. Sixty-two patients were included in the study, and 57 of them completed the whole procedure. The patients were randomly allocated to receive the treatments of HA or fat in both NLFs. The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) were used for assessment. Efficacy was assessed using two parameters: evaluation of final improvement by blinded evaluator and patient-self using photographs. The effectiveness endpoint was improvement of scores at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from baseline. The adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: In the blinded evaluator scores for NLF in accordance with WSRS, there were no significant differences between the two methods within 9 months. A statistically significant difference between the lipoinjection and HA groups was found at 12-month follow-up period. Subjects' self-assessment was similar to the results seen for the evaluator scores. The difference of AEs between the HA and fat group was obvious in the early stage of recovery. In the later stage, the AEs of the HA and fat group were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both HA gel and autologous fat provide augmentation of NLFs. The magnitude and duration of NLF correction appear to be similarly effective and safe within a period.
Authors: Tomasz Stefura; Artur Kacprzyk; Jakub Droś; Marta Krzysztofik; Oksana Skomarovska; Marta Fijałkowska; Mateusz Koziej Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 2.708