Patient Comfort, Safety, and Effectiveness of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Formulated With Different Local Anesthetics

4Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUNDMaximizing patient comfort during hyaluronic acid gel injection is a common concern that is usually addressed by selecting fillers with lidocaine.OBJECTIVETwo randomized, double-blinded, split-face trials aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of specific hyaluronic acid fillers incorporating mepivacaine (RHA-M) versus their lidocaine controls, at providing pain relief.METHODSThirty subjects per trial received injections of RHAR-M versus RHAR, and RHA4-M versus RHA4, respectively, in the perioral rhytids (PR) and nasolabial folds (NLF). Pain was assessed on a visual analog scale; aesthetic effectiveness was evaluated with validated scales, and safety was monitored based on common treatment responses (CTRs) and adverse events (AEs).RESULTSRHA-M fillers proved as effective as their lidocaine counterparts at reducing pain (noninferior, p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaufman-Janette, J., Joseph, J. H., Dayan, S. H., Smith, S., Eaton, L., & Maffert, P. (2022). Patient Comfort, Safety, and Effectiveness of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Formulated With Different Local Anesthetics. Dermatologic Surgery, 48(10), 1065–1070. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003541

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free