Di Gregorio Carlo, Gauglitz Gerd, Partridge Jackie
Plastic Surgery Unit Clinica Candela, Palermo, Italy.
Haut- und Laserzentrum im Glockenbachviertel, Munich, Germany.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2022 Apr 14;15:681-690. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S353878. eCollection 2022.
Patients seeking treatment for the midface are individuals with different objectives and characteristics of skin and soft tissue. In this study, patients were treated in the midface with one of three products with different properties; HA, HA, or HA, using a treatment algorithm based on primary need for treatment (volumizing, lifting or contouring) and tissue coverage (thin or thick tissue). The aim was to optimize the treatment outcome and to provide an individualized treatment approach that distinguishes different types of patients seeking midfacial treatment.
Subjects were treated in the midface at baseline to achieve optimal aesthetic results (≤2 mL per side of the face), and touch-up was allowed after 4 weeks (≤1 mL per side of the face). Study visits were scheduled at Weeks 8, 16 and 24. Assessments included aesthetic improvement of the midface, evaluation of midface fullness, and subject satisfaction. Safety evaluations included local tolerability symptoms collected at 4 weeks after treatment and adverse events.
A total of 90 subjects were included in the study, mean age was 45 years (range 29-55) and 82% of subjects were female. Mean total injected volume for the products was 4.4 mL (HA and HA) and 4.2 mL (HA). At least 92% of subjects were assessed as aesthetically improved throughout the study. Assessment of midface fullness showed ≥90% of subjects being responders until Week 24. In addition, subject satisfaction was high throughout the study. Tenderness, bruising and swelling were the most reported local tolerability symptom for all study products, and no adverse events related to study product/treatment were reported.
Midface treatment with either HA, HA, or HA using a treatment algorithm to guide the choice of product to individual subject needs was effective and safe for up to 24 weeks after treatment.
寻求中面部治疗的患者具有不同的目标以及皮肤和软组织特征。在本研究中,使用基于主要治疗需求(填充、提升或塑形)和组织覆盖情况(薄组织或厚组织)的治疗方案,用三种具有不同特性的产品之一对患者的中面部进行治疗;分别为透明质酸、透明质酸或透明质酸。目的是优化治疗效果,并提供一种个性化的治疗方法,以区分寻求中面部治疗的不同类型患者。
在基线时对受试者的中面部进行治疗以获得最佳美学效果(每侧面部≤2毫升),4周后允许进行补打(每侧面部≤1毫升)。研究访视安排在第8周、第16周和第24周。评估包括中面部的美学改善、中面部丰满度评估以及受试者满意度。安全性评估包括治疗后4周收集的局部耐受性症状和不良事件。
本研究共纳入90名受试者,平均年龄为45岁(范围29 - 55岁),82%的受试者为女性。产品的平均总注射量为4.4毫升(透明质酸和透明质酸)和4.2毫升(透明质酸)。在整个研究过程中,至少92%的受试者被评估为美学上有改善。中面部丰满度评估显示,直到第24周,≥90%的受试者有反应。此外,在整个研究过程中受试者满意度较高。压痛、瘀斑和肿胀是所有研究产品报告最多的局部耐受性症状,未报告与研究产品/治疗相关的不良事件。
使用治疗方案根据个体受试者需求指导产品选择,用透明质酸、透明质酸或透明质酸进行中面部治疗在治疗后长达24周是有效且安全的。