Mid-Face Volumization With Hyaluronic Acid: Injection Technique and Safety Aspects from a Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study.

Related Articles

Mid-Face Volumization With Hyaluronic Acid: Injection Technique and Safety Aspects from a Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Apr 01;16(4):351-357

Authors: Prager W, Agsten K, Kravtsov M, Kerscher PM

Abstract
<p>BACKGROUND: Injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) volumizing fillers in the malar area is intended for rejuvenation of the mid-face. The choice of products, depth, and technique of injection depends on the desired level of volume enhancement and practitioners' preferences.</p> <p>OBJECTIVE: To describe a volumizing injection technique in the scope of a controlled, randomized, double-blind, single-center, split-face clinical study.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 45 subjects with bilateral symmetrical moderate to severe volume loss in the malar area received a single 2 mL injection of CPM®-26 (Cohesive Polydensified Matrix®) on one side and VYC®-20 (VYCROSS®) on the contralateral side of the face. The same injection technique was applied for both sides of the face. Use of anesthetics, overcorrection, and touch-ups were not permitted. The investigator completed a product satisfaction questionnaire. Adverse events (AE) and injection-site reactions (ISRs) were reported during the study.</p> <p>RESULTS: The products were placed at the epiperiosteal depth in 88.9% (n=40), at the subdermal depth in 8.9% (n=4) and at both levels in 2.2% (n=1) of subjects. Fanning technique using cannulae was applied in most cases (97.8%, n=44). Results of the investigator satisfaction questionnaire allowed to characterize CPM-26 in comparison to other volumizing gels. Both study products were generally well tolerated. Local reactions were transient and of mild to moderate intensity, with the most frequent ones being redness, pain, and swelling.</p> <p>CONCLUSION: Adequate injection technique in volumizing treatments is essential to create a natural aesthetic rejuvenation while respecting the safety aspect of the procedures. A 22G blunt cannula used with CPM-26 was preferred due to an easier and a more homogeneous distribution of the product. The investigator also appreciated CPM-26 for its ease of injection, positioning, lifting, and volumizing capacity.</p> <p><em>J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(4):351-357.</em></p>.

PMID: 28403269 [PubMed - in process]

http://ift.tt/2pe7q7G