Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsRandomized Controlled TrialPubMed

Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical).

Gentile P.

Randomized Controlled Trial with a reported sample of 17, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2022)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
17
Source database
PubMed
PMID
36470985
DOI
10.1007/s00266-022-03209-7
Citations
7

Abstract (original English)

Background The author presented his experience using "fat grafting" (FG) and "hyaluronic acid" (HA) techniques in nasal remodeling. Objectives The paper aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of FG and HA in nasal remodeling for aesthetic improvement. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted. 15 patients affected by soft defects of the dorsum, low and boxy nasal tip, and hidden columella, were treated with FG (study group-SG), comparing results with the control group (CG) (n = 17) treated with hyaluronic acid (HA). Post-operative follow-up took place at 1, 2, 4, weeks, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually. Results 73.7% of SG patients showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with only 29.7% of CG patients. At one-month, major part of people who underwent the treatments (FG and HA) referred to satisfaction with the resulting volume contours (p = 0.389). 88.3% of CG patients versus 53.8% of SG described the HA and FG injection, respectively, as a very comfortable and non-invasive procedure. As expected, patient satisfaction with the appearance of nasal contouring was higher in the FG group at 1 year. Conclusions FG and HA were safe and effective in this series of cases performed. Level of evidence iii This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings,

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
HumansHyaluronic AcidNasal SeptumPatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeEsthetics

Browse all related research

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