Efficacy and Safety of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Injected with a Cannula: A Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded, Split-Face Controlled Study
Kenneth Beer,Brian Biesman,Sue Ellen Cox,Stacy Smith,Laura Picault,Patrick Trevidic
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S402315
2023-04-09
Abstract:Kenneth Beer, 1 Brian Biesman, 2 Sue Ellen Cox, 3 Stacy Smith, 4 Laura Picault, 5 Patrick Trevidic 6 1 Beer Dermatology, West Palm Beach, FL, USA; 2 Private Practice, Nashville, TN, USA; 3 Aesthetic Solutions, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 4 California Dermatology & Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas, CA, USA; 5 Teoxane Clinical Development Department, Genève, Switzerland; 6 Expert 2 Expert, Paris, France Correspondence: Patrick Trevidic, Expert 2 Expert, 7 Rue de Sontay, Paris, 75116, France, Tel +33 145 016 415, Fax +33 145 008 981, Email Purpose: Cannulas are increasingly used for injecting hyaluronic acid fillers, as they are thought to improve patient comfort safety and treatment tolerability. This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a Resilient Hyaluronic Acid 4 (RHA 4) filler injected with a cannula versus a needle for the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds (NLF). Patients and Methods: A total of 50 subjects were included in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face trial. The NLF were injected with RHA 4 using a cannula on one side of the face and using a needle on the other side on Day 0. A touch-up could be performed 4 weeks later. The subjects were followed up for 12 weeks after the last injection, ie, injection on Day 0 or touch-up. Efficacy was evaluated using a Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and patient-reported outcomes. Safety assessments included the injection-site pain, common treatment reactions (CTRs), and adverse events (AEs). Results: Twelve weeks after the last injection, the efficacy of the cannula treatment was found to be non-inferior to that of the needle treatment, based on the WSRS score improvements. The other study endpoints showed the equivalent efficacy and safety of the two methods. No serious or unexpected AEs were reported. Conclusion: RHA 4 may be effectively and safely injected into the NLF using a cannula or a needle, provided it is administrated by a trained practitioner. Keywords: cosmetic techniques, hyaluronic acid, injections, nasolabial fold, treatment outcome The emergence of nasolabial folds (NLF) is an early sign of aging and a frequent concern of patients desiring aesthetic procedures. 1 Since the advent of dermal filling procedures, NLF have been widely treated along with an increasing number of other facial signs of aging. 2,3 Although NLF injections are very common in clinical practice, the area presents anatomical specificities making the procedure technically complex. 4–6 Briefly, the NLF represents the anatomical border between the cheek, with its generous layer of subcutaneous fat, and the lip, where the skin directly adheres to the orbicularis oris muscle with very little intervening fat. 6 Musculodermal insertions of the lip elevator muscles underneath the NLF bring further complexity to the tissue layers' arrangement. 6–9 The NLF has been labelled one of the facial "danger zones", on the grounds of its association with vascular complications. 10,11 This may be partially explained by the disproportionately large number of procedures in this region in routine practice. However, the complex vascular network underneath the NLF clearly plays a role, particularly in the upper third of the fold. The facial artery (FA) runs subcutaneously in the whole NLF but is even more superficial in the upper third of the fold, and it can anastomose with branches of the infraorbital artery (IOA). 12–14 In addition to an in-depth knowledge of the anatomy and the adoption of appropriate techniques, 15 the use of cannula is seen by many practitioners as an additional safety precaution. 15,16 A growing number of practitioners tend to favor the use of cannulas over needles for certain procedures, on the grounds that they enhance injection ease, patient comfort, and safety. While several controlled clinical studies provide support for this, 17–20 other trials have only been able to demonstrate an equivalent safety profile for the cannula and needle treatments. 21–23 It has been hypothesized that the use of round-tipped cannulas (particularly large diameters, ie, 25G or less) instead of sharp needles may minimize the risk of vascular injury and intravascular injection. Although the current evidence for this is somewhat contradictory, 24,25 it is believed that the cannula's rounded end is less likely to lacerate vessels than a sharp needle, and that cannulas with a larger diameter would require stronger injection forces to penetrate an arterial wall. 26,27 In this st -Abstract Truncated-
dermatology