Suppr超能文献

一项关于小颗粒和大颗粒透明质酸填充剂治疗鼻唇沟安全性和有效性的随机、半脸、双盲对照研究。

A randomized, split-face, double-blind, comparative study of the safety and efficacy of small- and large-particle hyaluronic acid fillers for the treatment of nasolabial folds.

作者信息

Nikolis Andreas, Enright Kaitlyn M, Öhrlund Åke, Winlöf Per, Cotofana Sebastian

机构信息

Erevna Innovations Clinical Research Unit, Westmount, QC, Canada.

Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

出版信息

J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 May;20(5):1450-1458. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13668. Epub 2020 Sep 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) for tissue augmentation are one of the most common aesthetic treatments performed worldwide. However, few studies have compared the safety and efficacy of small- and large-particle HA (SP-HA; LP-HA).

AIM

To assess and compare the safety and efficacy of SP-HA and LP-HA for the correction of nasolabial folds (NLFs).

METHODS

A prospective, split-face, triple-blind study design was used. Ten female subjects were recruited. Patients underwent treatment at baseline, an optional touch up at Week 2, and a follow-up visit at Week 4. At weeks 2 and 4, a blinded reviewer assessed the patients using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS); and subjects completed the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ). At all visits, 3-dimensional imagery and ultrasonography of patients' NLFs were captured. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated by the Investigator and recorded by subjects in diaries.

RESULTS

The GAIS response rate, defined as ≥ "improved" from baseline, was between 90 (2 weeks) and 100% (1 month) for SP-HA and was 100% for LP-HA, at both visits. Paired-samples t tests revealed significant differences in the change in WSRS scores between groups, at both visits (P < .01). Differences in the clinical effect and lifting capacity of both products were observed in 3-dimensional imagery and ultrasonography. Treatment volumes varied, with 61.32% more SP-HA being required than LP-HA for achieving a ≥ one-grade WSRS improvement. There were no severe AEs throughout the trial, nor AEs related to the investigational device.

CONCLUSIONS

LP-HA demonstrates better efficacy for correcting bony resorption in the nasal pyriform region.

摘要

背景

注射透明质酸(HA)用于组织填充是全球最常见的美容治疗方法之一。然而,很少有研究比较小颗粒HA(SP-HA)和大颗粒HA(LP-HA)的安全性和有效性。

目的

评估和比较SP-HA和LP-HA矫正鼻唇沟(NLF)的安全性和有效性。

方法

采用前瞻性、半脸、三盲研究设计。招募了10名女性受试者。患者在基线时接受治疗,在第2周可选择进行补打,并在第4周进行随访。在第2周和第4周,由一位盲法评估者使用全球美容改善量表(GAIS)和皱纹严重程度评分量表(WSRS)对患者进行评估;受试者完成患者满意度问卷(PSQ)。在所有就诊时,采集患者鼻唇沟的三维图像和超声图像。研究者评估不良事件(AE),受试者在日记中记录。

结果

GAIS反应率定义为自基线起≥“改善”,在两次就诊时,SP-HA的反应率在90%(2周)至100%(1个月)之间,LP-HA为100%。配对样本t检验显示,在两次就诊时,两组间WSRS评分变化存在显著差异(P <.01)。在三维图像和超声检查中观察到两种产品在临床效果和提升能力上的差异。治疗用量有所不同,要实现WSRS评分至少提高一级,所需的SP-HA比LP-HA多61.32%。在整个试验过程中没有严重不良事件,也没有与研究器械相关的不良事件。

结论

LP-HA在矫正鼻梨状孔区域骨质吸收方面显示出更好的疗效。

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