Suppr超能文献

聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)与透明质酸(HA)填充物栓塞风险比较。

Risk Comparison of Filler Embolism Between Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) and Hyaluronic Acid (HA).

机构信息

Department of Plastic Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Rd., Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019 Jun;43(3):853-860. doi: 10.1007/s00266-019-01320-w. Epub 2019 Mar 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The incidence of vascular complications varies among different fillers. The main purpose of this study was to compare the risk of embolism between PMMA (Artecoll) and hyaluronic acid (HA, Restylane) after artery injection.

METHODS

Rabbit ears were injected via the central artery with 0.1 ml PMMA (group A), 0.1 ml HA (group B), 0.2 ml PMMA (group C), or 0.2 mL HA (group D), respectively. The formation of transparent emboli was monitored right after injection. Tissue necrosis and histopathological changes were analyzed on day 7.

RESULTS

With 0.1 ml injected volume, PMMA was dispersed within a few minutes and only 5% of the injected ears had mild necrosis on day 7, while HA tended to form obvious transparent emboli, an indication of blood vessel clotting, and 60% of injected ears showed necrosis on day 7. With 0.2 ml injected volume, PMMA had a risk of complete blood vessel clotting in between 0.1 ml PMMA group and 0.1 ml HA group, and 30% of injected ears had necrosis; in contrast, 100% of 0.2 ml HA-injected ears showed transparent emboli and necrosis. The necrosis areas were significantly increased in the HA groups compared with PMMA groups at the same injection volumes. HA injection also caused dilation of small blood vessels.

CONCLUSION

At the same injection volume, PMMA had less risk of embolism compared with HA. With increased injection volume, there were increased risks of embolism and necrosis for both PMMA and HA.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

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 .

摘要

背景

不同填充物的血管并发症发生率不同。本研究的主要目的是比较动脉内注射后 PMMA(Artecoll)和透明质酸(HA,Restylane)发生栓塞的风险。

方法

通过中央动脉分别向兔耳内注射 0.1ml PMMA(A 组)、0.1mlHA(B 组)、0.2mlPMMA(C 组)或 0.2mlHA(D 组)。注射后立即监测透明栓塞的形成。第 7 天分析组织坏死和组织病理学变化。

结果

注射 0.1ml 体积时,PMMA 在数分钟内分散,仅 5%的注射耳在第 7 天出现轻度坏死,而 HA 则倾向于形成明显的透明栓塞,表明血管内凝血,60%的注射耳在第 7 天出现坏死。注射 0.2ml 体积时,PMMA 在 0.1mlPMMA 组和 0.1mlHA 组之间有完全血管内凝血的风险,30%的注射耳出现坏死;相比之下,100%的 0.2mlHA 注射耳出现透明栓塞和坏死。在相同的注射量下,HA 组的坏死面积明显大于 PMMA 组。HA 注射还导致小血管扩张。

结论

在相同的注射量下,PMMA 发生栓塞的风险低于 HA。随着注射量的增加,PMMA 和 HA 发生栓塞和坏死的风险均增加。

未分级

本杂志要求作者为每篇文章指定一个证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参考目录或在线作者指南 www.springer.com/00266

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0dc0/6522461/f033d2283ef7/266_2019_1320_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验