Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsCase Report / SeriesEurope PMC

Poly-L-lactic acid fillers for nasal alar retraction: safety and effectiveness in 13 cases

Yang Y., Shi N.

Case Report / Series with a reported sample of 13 on Face & Skin, published in Am J Transl Res (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Case Report / Series
Journal
Am J Transl Res (2024)
Reported sample size
13
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39006279
PMCID
PMC11236672
DOI
10.62347/nfnb7436

Abstract (original English)

Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) fillers in treating nasal alar retraction. We conducted a series of case reports on 13 patients treated for nasal alar retraction at the Chengdu Ningyue FRESKIN Medicine Cosmology Clinic from September 2022 to July 2023. Patients ranged from 23 to 49 years, comprising 12 females and 1 male. Of these, 5 had no prior medical history, 7 had previously undergone rhinoplasty, and 1 had a history of nasal trauma. Treatment outcomes and adverse reactions were monitored following PLLA filler injections. The mean pre-treatment severity score was 1.62±0.65, improving to 0.54±0.66 post-treatment (t=4.19, df=23, P<0.001). All participants reported satisfaction with their results without adverse effects. PLLA facial fillers are a safe and effective treatment for nasal alar retraction, presenting no embolism risk. This treatment merits consideration for broader clinical application.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research