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.

Gentile, P. (2023). Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical). AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 47(2) [10.1007/s00266-022-03209-7].

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

Gentile, Pietro
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2023-04-01

Abstract

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.
apr-2023
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MED/19
English
Nasal fat grafting
Nasal hyaluronic acid
Nose fat grafting
Plastic surgery
Rhinofiller
Rhinofilling
Gentile, P. (2023). Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical). AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 47(2) [10.1007/s00266-022-03209-7].
Gentile, P
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Rhinofiller fat vs ha.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 2.17 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.17 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/359206
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact