Reliable soft tissue augmentation: A clinical comparison of injectable soft-tissue fillers for facial-volume augmentation

Suhail K. Kanchwala, Lisa Holloway, Louis P. Bucky, W. P.Andrew Lee, Charles H. Thorne, Donald R. Mackay, Eugene C. Carroccia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

93 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

While injectable fillers for facial-volume augmentation have been extensively marketed, there are few published reports comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of multiple injectable agents for soft-tissue augmentation in the face. We present our experience in 976 patients with the use of 4 common injectable agents: autologous fat, Hylaform, Restylane, and Radiesse. We analyzed the injection characteristics of each filler, including injection volume, complication rate, revision rate, and longevity, across 3 commonly treated anatomic regions: the nasolabial fold, glabella, and lips. We subsequently performed a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of each filler in each anatomic region. Our results demonstrate that autologous fat transplantation is ideally suited for the treatment of the nasolabial fold and glabella, particularly in combination with other procedures. Fat grafting to the lips is limited to use as an adjunct to other facial surgery due to the prolonged recovery time required. We prefer Radiesse for the isolated treatment of the nasolabial folds and glabella. However, Radiesse is not recommended in the lips due to the increased incidence of complications. Last, the hyaluronic fillers Restylane and Hylaform have an excellent safety profile and are our first choice for isolated lip augmentation procedures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)30-35
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of plastic surgery
Volume55
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nasolabial Fold
Lip
Injections
Fats
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Autologous Transplantation
Safety
Incidence
Therapeutics
Restylane
hylan-B gel

Keywords

  • Fat grafting
  • Hylaform
  • Injectable filler
  • Radiesse
  • Restylane

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Reliable soft tissue augmentation : A clinical comparison of injectable soft-tissue fillers for facial-volume augmentation. / Kanchwala, Suhail K.; Holloway, Lisa; Bucky, Louis P.; Lee, W. P.Andrew; Thorne, Charles H.; Mackay, Donald R.; Carroccia, Eugene C.

In: Annals of plastic surgery, Vol. 55, No. 1, 01.07.2005, p. 30-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kanchwala, Suhail K. ; Holloway, Lisa ; Bucky, Louis P. ; Lee, W. P.Andrew ; Thorne, Charles H. ; Mackay, Donald R. ; Carroccia, Eugene C. / Reliable soft tissue augmentation : A clinical comparison of injectable soft-tissue fillers for facial-volume augmentation. In: Annals of plastic surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 55, No. 1. pp. 30-35.
@article{4b541a4b0992433691188a7ef4382f01,
title = "Reliable soft tissue augmentation: A clinical comparison of injectable soft-tissue fillers for facial-volume augmentation",
abstract = "While injectable fillers for facial-volume augmentation have been extensively marketed, there are few published reports comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of multiple injectable agents for soft-tissue augmentation in the face. We present our experience in 976 patients with the use of 4 common injectable agents: autologous fat, Hylaform, Restylane, and Radiesse. We analyzed the injection characteristics of each filler, including injection volume, complication rate, revision rate, and longevity, across 3 commonly treated anatomic regions: the nasolabial fold, glabella, and lips. We subsequently performed a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of each filler in each anatomic region. Our results demonstrate that autologous fat transplantation is ideally suited for the treatment of the nasolabial fold and glabella, particularly in combination with other procedures. Fat grafting to the lips is limited to use as an adjunct to other facial surgery due to the prolonged recovery time required. We prefer Radiesse for the isolated treatment of the nasolabial folds and glabella. However, Radiesse is not recommended in the lips due to the increased incidence of complications. Last, the hyaluronic fillers Restylane and Hylaform have an excellent safety profile and are our first choice for isolated lip augmentation procedures.",
keywords = "Fat grafting, Hylaform, Injectable filler, Radiesse, Restylane",
author = "Kanchwala, {Suhail K.} and Lisa Holloway and Bucky, {Louis P.} and Lee, {W. P.Andrew} and Thorne, {Charles H.} and Mackay, {Donald R.} and Carroccia, {Eugene C.}",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.sap.0000168292.69753.73",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "30--35",
journal = "Annals of Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0148-7043",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliable soft tissue augmentation

T2 - A clinical comparison of injectable soft-tissue fillers for facial-volume augmentation

AU - Kanchwala, Suhail K.

AU - Holloway, Lisa

AU - Bucky, Louis P.

AU - Lee, W. P.Andrew

AU - Thorne, Charles H.

AU - Mackay, Donald R.

AU - Carroccia, Eugene C.

PY - 2005/7/1

Y1 - 2005/7/1

N2 - While injectable fillers for facial-volume augmentation have been extensively marketed, there are few published reports comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of multiple injectable agents for soft-tissue augmentation in the face. We present our experience in 976 patients with the use of 4 common injectable agents: autologous fat, Hylaform, Restylane, and Radiesse. We analyzed the injection characteristics of each filler, including injection volume, complication rate, revision rate, and longevity, across 3 commonly treated anatomic regions: the nasolabial fold, glabella, and lips. We subsequently performed a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of each filler in each anatomic region. Our results demonstrate that autologous fat transplantation is ideally suited for the treatment of the nasolabial fold and glabella, particularly in combination with other procedures. Fat grafting to the lips is limited to use as an adjunct to other facial surgery due to the prolonged recovery time required. We prefer Radiesse for the isolated treatment of the nasolabial folds and glabella. However, Radiesse is not recommended in the lips due to the increased incidence of complications. Last, the hyaluronic fillers Restylane and Hylaform have an excellent safety profile and are our first choice for isolated lip augmentation procedures.

AB - While injectable fillers for facial-volume augmentation have been extensively marketed, there are few published reports comparing the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of multiple injectable agents for soft-tissue augmentation in the face. We present our experience in 976 patients with the use of 4 common injectable agents: autologous fat, Hylaform, Restylane, and Radiesse. We analyzed the injection characteristics of each filler, including injection volume, complication rate, revision rate, and longevity, across 3 commonly treated anatomic regions: the nasolabial fold, glabella, and lips. We subsequently performed a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of each filler in each anatomic region. Our results demonstrate that autologous fat transplantation is ideally suited for the treatment of the nasolabial fold and glabella, particularly in combination with other procedures. Fat grafting to the lips is limited to use as an adjunct to other facial surgery due to the prolonged recovery time required. We prefer Radiesse for the isolated treatment of the nasolabial folds and glabella. However, Radiesse is not recommended in the lips due to the increased incidence of complications. Last, the hyaluronic fillers Restylane and Hylaform have an excellent safety profile and are our first choice for isolated lip augmentation procedures.

KW - Fat grafting

KW - Hylaform

KW - Injectable filler

KW - Radiesse

KW - Restylane

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=21244461922&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=21244461922&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.sap.0000168292.69753.73

DO - 10.1097/01.sap.0000168292.69753.73

M3 - Article

C2 - 15985788

AN - SCOPUS:21244461922

VL - 55

SP - 30

EP - 35

JO - Annals of Plastic Surgery

JF - Annals of Plastic Surgery

SN - 0148-7043

IS - 1

ER -