Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Phase III, Randomized, Multi-Center, Double-Masked, Matched-Pairs, Active-Controlled Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety between Neuramis Deep and Restylane in the Correction of Nasolabial Folds

  • Pak, Changsik (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jihoon (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hong, Jinmyung (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jeong, Jaehoon (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Bang, Saik (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Heo, Chan Yeong (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2015.03.03
  • Accepted : 2015.06.22
  • Published : 2015.11.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background We conducted this clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety between Neuramis Deep and Restylane in the correction of nasolabial folds. Methods In this phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-masked, matched-pairs, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01585220), we evaluated a total of 67 subjects (n=67). All the subjects underwent Neuramis Deep treatment on one side and Restylane on the contralateral side of the bilateral nasolabial folds at a ratio of 1:1. To compare the efficacy of Neuramis Deep and Restylane, we evaluated the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale scores and those of the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. In addition, we compared the safety of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on adverse events, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. Results Neuramis Deep was not inferior in improving the nasolabial folds as compared with Restylane. In addition, there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. There were no significant differences in safety parameters between Neuramis Deep and Restylane. Conclusions In conclusion, our results indicate that Neuramis Deep may be a safe, effective material for improving the nasolabial folds. However, further studies are warranted to compare the tolerability of Neuramis Deep and Restylane based on histopathologic findings.

Keywords

References

  1. Quirino MR, Neves AC, Campos MS, et al. Oral granuloma formation after injection of cosmetic filler. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:e194-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.007
  2. Lindqvist C, Tveten S, Bondevik BE, et al. A randomized, evaluator-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Perlane versus Zyplast in the correction of nasolabial folds. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115:282-9.
  3. Matarasso SL, Carruthers JD, Jewell ML. Consensus recommendations for soft-tissue augmentation with nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (Restylane). Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;117:3S-34S.
  4. Narins RS, Brandt F, Leyden J, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Restylane versus Zyplast for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:588-95.
  5. Carruthers A, Carey W, De Lorenzi C, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy of two hyaluronic acid derivatives, restylane perlane and hylaform, in the treatment of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 2005;31:1591-8. https://doi.org/10.2310/6350.2005.31246
  6. Beer K. A randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison of efficacy of hyaluronic acid gel and avian-sourced hylan B plus gel for correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 2007; 33:928-36.
  7. Buntrock H, Reuther T, Prager W, et al. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of a monophasic cohesive polydensified matrix versus a biphasic nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid filler after single injection in nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:1097-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12177
  8. Flynn TC, Sarazin D, Bezzola A, et al. Comparative histology of intradermal implantation of mono and biphasic hyaluronic acid fillers. Dermatol Surg 2011;37:637-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01852.x
  9. Park KY, Kim HK, Kim BJ. Comparative study of hyaluronic acid fillers by in vitro and in vivo testing. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014;28:565-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12135

Cited by

  1. Glycosaminoglycan and Proteoglycan Biotherapeutics in Articular Cartilage Protection and Repair Strategies: Novel Approaches to Visco‐supplementation in Orthobiologics vol.2, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/adtp.201900034
  2. Comparative Analysis of Hyaluronidase-Mediated Degradation Among Seven Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Hairless Mice vol.14, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.s300960
  3. Comparative Analyses of Inflammatory Response and Tissue Integration of 14 Hyaluronic Acid-Based Fillers in Mini Pigs vol.14, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.s315076