Davidovic Kristina, Melnikov Dmitry V, Frank Konstantin, Gavril Diana, Green Jeremy B, Freytag David L, Heisinger Stephan, Pavicic Tatjana, Gold Michael H, Cotofana Sebastian
Department of Radiology & Medical School, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Plastic Surgery Department, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 May;20(5):1385-1392. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13875. Epub 2020 Dec 8.
Differences in the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments for horizontal forehead lines dependent on depth of product administration have been described. However, knowledge in respect to the fascial anatomy of the forehead still remains elusive.
To relate the fascial anatomy of the forehead to the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments by conducting a clinical, prospective, interventional split-face study in which injections for the treatment of horizontal forehead lines are performed differently between facial sides.
This study included a total of n = 14 patients with a mean age of 35.71 (7.8) years and mean body mass index of 21.9 (3.0) kg/m . One side of the forehead was injected superficially by positioning the product in the superficial fatty layer, whereas the contralateral side was injected deep targeting the supraperiosteal plane (random selection). The treatment outcome was rated by the physician and by two independent observers according to a forehead line severity scale (0-4) at 14 and at 30 days.
All three observers agreed in their ratings (ICC: 0.942) that the deep injection technique resulted in a superior outcome: D14 (superficial vs deep) 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.4; P = .583) at rest and 1.26 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction; D30 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.3) at rest (P = .583) and 1.21 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction.
The results of this study underscore how detailed anatomic knowledge can enhance results of aesthetic interventions, in this case horizontal forehead line treatment with neuromodulators.
已有研究描述了根据产品注射深度不同,神经调节剂治疗水平额纹的效果差异。然而,关于前额筋膜解剖结构的知识仍然难以捉摸。
通过开展一项临床、前瞻性、介入性半脸对照研究,使前额筋膜解剖结构与神经调节剂治疗效果相关联,该研究中面部两侧治疗水平额纹的注射方式不同。
本研究共纳入n = 14例患者,平均年龄35.71(7.8)岁,平均体重指数21.9(3.0)kg/m²。前额一侧通过将产品置于浅表脂肪层进行浅表注射,而对侧则深部注射,靶向骨膜上平面(随机选择)。在第14天和第30天,由医生和两名独立观察者根据额纹严重程度量表(0 - 4)对治疗结果进行评分。
所有三位观察者在评分上达成一致(组内相关系数:0.942),即深部注射技术产生了更好的效果:休息时D14(浅表注射与深部注射)分别为0.17(0.4)和0.14(0.4;P = 0.583),额肌收缩时分别为1.26(0.6)和0.43(0.5;P < 0.001);D30休息时分别为0.17(0.4)和0.14(0.3)(P = 0.583),额肌收缩时分别为1.21(0.6)和0.43(0.5;P < 0.001)。
本研究结果强调了详细的解剖学知识如何能够提高美学干预的效果,在本案例中即使用神经调节剂治疗水平额纹的效果。