Chenglong Wang1, Sisi Luan2, Adriana C Panayi3, Minqiang Xin1, Bobin Mi4, Jie Luan5. 1. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, No. 33 Ba-Da-Chu Road, Shi-Jing-Shan District, Beijing, 100144, China. 2. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. 5. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, No. 33 Ba-Da-Chu Road, Shi-Jing-Shan District, Beijing, 100144, China. luanjieplastic@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) gel is a widely used dermal filler for the correction facial volume loss. The incorporation of lidocaine with HA provides a pain-relieving alternative for individuals considering facial rejuvenation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA with lidocaine (HAL) with that of HA without lidocaine for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). METHODS: Studies were identified using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Outcomes included 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 908 patients from 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. VAS score within 30 min after injection in the HAL group was much lower than that with just HA group (MD = - 28.83, 95% CI - 36.38 to - 21.28). There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two products 24 months post-injection (MD = 0.13, 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.41). The main adverse events, such as swelling, erythema, bruising, itching and induration, also showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: HAL is more effective for pain relief than HA alone, but both display similar effectiveness and safety for the correction of NLFs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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 .
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) gel is a widely used dermal filler for the correction facial volume loss. The incorporation of lidocaine with HA provides a pain-relieving alternative for individuals considering facial rejuvenation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA with lidocaine (HAL) with that of HA without lidocaine for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). METHODS: Studies were identified using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Outcomes included 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 908 patients from 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. VAS score within 30 min after injection in the HAL group was much lower than that with just HA group (MD = - 28.83, 95% CI - 36.38 to - 21.28). There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two products 24 months post-injection (MD = 0.13, 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.41). The main adverse events, such as swelling, erythema, bruising, itching and induration, also showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: HAL is more effective for pain relief than HA alone, but both display similar effectiveness and safety for the correction of NLFs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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 .
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