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

Autor: Elrosasy A; Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt., Abo Zeid M; Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. Mohamed_31059599@med.tanta.edu.eg., Hindawi MD; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt., Cadri S; Grigore T. Popa, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania., Ismeal AAA; Faculty of Pharmacy, Minia University, Minia, Egypt., Eldeeb HA; Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt., Aldemerdash MA; Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt., Abdelghany AEM; Faculty of Medicine, October 6 University, Giza, Egypt.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Archives of dermatological research [Arch Dermatol Res] 2024 Dec 21; Vol. 317 (1), pp. 152. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Dec 21.
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-024-03567-z
Abstrakt: 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.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethical Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: