M J Kim1, W-J Moon2, M S Hur1, S H Han1, Y W Lee1,3, Y B Choe1,3, K J Ahn1,3. 1. Department of Dermatology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Research Institute of Medical Science, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is an anionic, non-sulfated glycosaminoglycan distributed throughout the human skin and injectable HA fillers are the most commonly used in aesthetic field. This study aimed to determine if differences in physical characteristics of HA products (monophasic or biphasic fillers) affect the patterns of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Twenty biphasic fillers and nine monophasic fillers were obtained from a commercial source, and examined with a 3.0 Tesla MRI scanner. Visual assessments and measurements of signal intensity for region of interest (ROI) were performed. A non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the ROI values. RESULTS: Visual assessments by a radiologist did not show significant differences between the two types of fillers. While the signal intensity between the two types of filler did not differ significantly for T1-weighted images, the signal intensity of the biphasic filler was lower than that of the monophasic filler for T2-weighted images (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Monophasic and biphasic HA fillers exhibited different MRI properties. Our findings may provide better insights into the use of in vivo MRI to evaluate aesthetic, procedure-related complications.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE:Hyaluronic acid (HA) is an anionic, non-sulfated glycosaminoglycan distributed throughout the human skin and injectable HA fillers are the most commonly used in aesthetic field. This study aimed to determine if differences in physical characteristics of HA products (monophasic or biphasic fillers) affect the patterns of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Twenty biphasic fillers and nine monophasic fillers were obtained from a commercial source, and examined with a 3.0 Tesla MRI scanner. Visual assessments and measurements of signal intensity for region of interest (ROI) were performed. A non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the ROI values. RESULTS: Visual assessments by a radiologist did not show significant differences between the two types of fillers. While the signal intensity between the two types of filler did not differ significantly for T1-weighted images, the signal intensity of the biphasic filler was lower than that of the monophasic filler for T2-weighted images (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Monophasic and biphasic HA fillers exhibited different MRI properties. Our findings may provide better insights into the use of in vivo MRI to evaluate aesthetic, procedure-related complications.