Meran, Suzanne

BACKGROUND The long-term efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid fillers injected into the neck have yet to be analyzed in a prospective trial in the United States. OBJECTIVE Analyze the long-term efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid filler for static horizontal neck rhytids. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-six subjects were enrolled in the study. Six subjects were randomized to receive saline and 20 subjects were randomized to receive HARR. All subjects were randomized to use a cannula on 1 side and needle on the other with optional retreatment on day 30 and optional crossover treatment with different assignment on day 60. The subjects were graded using the Transverse Neck Line Scale, Canfield photography, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale on day 360. RESULTS A significant improvement from baseline on day 360 was achieved on the Transverse Neck Line Scale according to the blind evaluator, subjects, and investigator without any delayed-onset or prolonged side effects. There was no significant difference in the average improvement from the short-term analysis on day 60 to the long-term analysis on day 360. CONCLUSION HARR achieved significant long-term improvement in static horizontal neck rhytids without any long-term side effects.

AbstractBackgroundHyaluronic acid fillers have been studied extensively for facial wrinkles; however, their efficacy for atrophic facial scars has yet to be analyzed in a prospective placebo‐controlled study.ObjectiveTo analyze the efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid filler for atrophic facial scars.Methods & MaterialsFifteen subjects were randomized to receive up to 1 ml of VYC‐17.5 L on one cheek and up to 1 ml of saline on the other side, with an optional touch‐up treatment. Subjects were graded by a live blind evaluator using the Quantitative Global Scarring Grading System (QGSGS) (J Cosmet Dermatol. 2006;5:48), the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and Canfield photo‐analysis.ResultsAccording to the blind evaluator, there was a significant reduction 90 days after the last treatment on the QGSGS for VYC‐17.5L compared with saline (−6.6 VYC‐17.5L vs −1.7 saline [t(28) = −4.3196,p = 0.008]). There was a smaller, but still significant reduction on the QGSGS for saline alone (10.4 to 8.6 [t(14) = −3.453,p = 0.004]). In addition, 93% (13/14) of subjects chose VYC‐17.5L over saline treatment and reported an improvement on the GAIS. There were no serious side effects and all minor side effects resolved by Day 30.ConclusionVYC‐17.5L achieved significant improvements in rolling atrophic scars as compared to saline, though saline also had modest improvements.