Efficacy and safety of different hyaluronic acid fillers on cheek volume augmentation: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Various rejuvenation surgeries, including hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, aim to address mid-face volume loss. However, literature on the comparative efficacy and safety of different HA fillers for the zygomatic area remains limited.

METHODS

This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), adhering to NMA PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines. Searches were conducted on different bases. Eligible studies included patients with mid-face volume loss undergoing HA interventions. The primary outcome was the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at different time points and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 1742 articles, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria with a total of 579 patients. The studies evaluated Giselleligne, VYC-20, Neuramis Lidocaine and ART-Filler. Results showed that Giselleligne demonstrated superior safety compared to VYC-20, ART-Filler and Neuramis-Lidocaine (Risk Ratios (RR) = 0.27, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [0.14; 0.54]), (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17; 0.75], & RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07; 0.67]) respectively However, there were no significant differences in the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale Assessment (GAIS) scores between HA fillers at 1, 3, and 6 months.

CONCLUSION

While no significant differences were observed in efficacy among HA fillers, Giselleligne emerged as a potentially safer option for the cheeks volume restoration. The study emphasizes the need for further well-designed RCTs to explore the long-term safety and durability of HA fillers. These findings contribute valuable insights for clinicians and patients in making evidence-based decisions regarding mid-face rejuvenation options.