Changho Chung1, Jong Hun Lee2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University, 68, Hangeulbiseok-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, School of Medicine, Eulji University, 68, Hangeulbiseok-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, South Korea. joaljh@eulji.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have been widely used in humans since 1958 because of their biomedical safety. Restylane® was introduced in the1990s as a favorable temporary filler option for facial augmentation. Subsequently, many new HA filler products, including the Sardenyashape®, have been introduced, but comparative studies of these products are limited. Here, we compared tolerability (wrinkle severity rating scale, WSRS), pain (visual analog scale, VAS score), satisfaction (global esthetic improvement scale, GAIS), and safety of a new monophasic HA (MHA) filler (Sardenyashape®) containing lidocaine, used to correct nasolabial folds (NLFs), with those of biphasic HA (BHA) filler (Restylane LYFT®) containing lidocaine. METHODS: We enrolled 96 participants with visible NLFs in this randomized, double-blind, single-center clinical study. Participants were injected with a new MHA filler in one NLF and a BHA filler and were reassessed for cosmetic changes at 8 and 24 weeks. Wrinkle severity was assessed using the 5-point WSRS. RESULTS: At week 24, the mean improvement in WSRS compared to baseline was 1.92 ± 0.75 and 2.24 ± 0.66 for MHA and BHA fillers, respectively, and corresponding average pain values using the VAS score 30 min after the procedure were 0.04 ± 0.25 and 0.02 ± 0.15, respectively, showing no significant difference. Average GAIS values 8 weeks after the procedure with MHA and BHA fillers were 1.89 ± 0.77 and 1.40 ± 0.82, respectively (p < 0.001). Both fillers were well tolerated, with mild adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the effect of Sardenyashape® with lidocaine on NLF in this study proved its effectiveness and safety for use in correcting NLF. 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) fillers have been widely used in humans since 1958 because of their biomedical safety. Restylane® was introduced in the1990s as a favorable temporary filler option for facial augmentation. Subsequently, many new HA filler products, including the Sardenyashape®, have been introduced, but comparative studies of these products are limited. Here, we compared tolerability (wrinkle severity rating scale, WSRS), pain (visual analog scale, VAS score), satisfaction (global esthetic improvement scale, GAIS), and safety of a new monophasic HA (MHA) filler (Sardenyashape®) containing lidocaine, used to correct nasolabial folds (NLFs), with those of biphasic HA (BHA) filler (Restylane LYFT®) containing lidocaine. METHODS: We enrolled 96 participants with visible NLFs in this randomized, double-blind, single-center clinical study. Participants were injected with a new MHA filler in one NLF and a BHA filler and were reassessed for cosmetic changes at 8 and 24 weeks. Wrinkle severity was assessed using the 5-point WSRS. RESULTS: At week 24, the mean improvement in WSRS compared to baseline was 1.92 ± 0.75 and 2.24 ± 0.66 for MHA and BHA fillers, respectively, and corresponding average pain values using the VAS score 30 min after the procedure were 0.04 ± 0.25 and 0.02 ± 0.15, respectively, showing no significant difference. Average GAIS values 8 weeks after the procedure with MHA and BHA fillers were 1.89 ± 0.77 and 1.40 ± 0.82, respectively (p < 0.001). Both fillers were well tolerated, with mild adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the effect of Sardenyashape® with lidocaine on NLF in this study proved its effectiveness and safety for use in correcting NLF. 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 .