Prager Welf, Micheels Patrick
Prager & Partner, Hamburg, Germany.
GP, Private Practice, Geneva, Switzerland.
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015 Jun;14(2):124-9. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12136. Epub 2015 May 10.
Lidocaine-containing dermal fillers may reduce procedural pain compared with lidocaine-free counterparts.
To assess practitioners' administration experience with, and the efficacy and safety of, a cohesive, polydensified-matrix(®) , hyaluronic acid-based filler containing lidocaine vs. its lidocaine-free counterpart.
The lidocaine-containing formulation was injected to one side of the face and the lidocaine-free to the other in 29 females (30-85 years). Administered dose was appropriate to the treatment zone and technique varied according to zone and practitioner preference. Questionnaires assessed practitioners' administration experience, their perception of results, subject satisfaction, and product safety.
Practitioners considered the formulations to be similar in terms of ejection force, texture, and placement. The blanching technique was used for 72% of subjects, and its ease was rated as "identical" for both products in 81% of applications and "easier" for the lidocaine-containing product in 6.9% of applications. Results with both formulations were "identical" for 86% of applications and "similar" for the remainder. In 86% of cases, practitioners would "certainly" consider continuing treatment with the lidocaine-containing formulation. All subjects were "satisfied" with treatment. Practitioners reported that, compared with the lidocaine-free product, subject-assessed pain with the lidocaine-containing product was "less prominent" for 86% and 79% of participants during and following treatment, respectively. Similarly, mean pain intensity was significantly lower for the lidocaine-containing preparation (P = 0.0001). Adverse events were similar for both treatments.
The lidocaine-containing dermal filler significantly reduced pain during and following treatment compared with the same preparation without lidocaine, without impact on administration, aesthetic outcome, or safety.
与不含利多卡因的真皮填充剂相比，含利多卡因的真皮填充剂可能会减轻操作过程中的疼痛。
评估一种含利多卡因的、具有粘性的、多密度基质（®）透明质酸基填充剂与其不含利多卡因的同类产品在医生使用体验、疗效及安全性方面的情况。
29名年龄在30至85岁之间的女性，一侧面部注射含利多卡因的制剂，另一侧注射不含利多卡因的制剂。给药剂量根据治疗区域而定，技术则根据区域和医生偏好而有所不同。通过问卷调查评估医生的使用体验、对效果的看法、受试者满意度及产品安全性。
医生认为两种制剂在推注力、质地和注射位置方面相似。72%的受试者采用了变白技术，在81%的应用中，两种产品的操作难易程度被评为“相同”，在6.9%的应用中，含利多卡因的产品操作更“容易”。在86%的应用中，两种制剂的效果“相同”，其余情况为“相似”。在86%的病例中，医生“肯定”会考虑继续使用含利多卡因的制剂进行治疗。所有受试者对治疗“满意”。医生报告称，与不含利多卡因的产品相比，在治疗期间和治疗后，分别有86%和79%的参与者认为含利多卡因产品的受试者评估疼痛“不那么明显”。同样，含利多卡因制剂的平均疼痛强度显著更低（P = 0.0001）。两种治疗的不良事件相似。
与不含利多卡因的相同制剂相比，含利多卡因的真皮填充剂在治疗期间及治疗后显著减轻了疼痛，且对操作、美学效果或安全性无影响。
