Dataset Information

An Italian Online Survey Regarding the Use of Hyaluronidase in Previously Hyaluronic Acid-Injected Noses Looking for Surgical Rhinoplasty.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nonsurgical nasal reshaping (nSNR) with hyaluronic acid (HA) filler is a well-established procedure performed to ameliorate nasal appearance and is considered a valid alternative to surgical rhinoplasty in selected patients.

Objectives

The aim of our study is to evaluate the decision-making process and management of patients undergoing rhinoplasty, with previous HA filler injection, and evaluate if consensus could be achieved to recommend guidelines.

Methods

Between April and May 2021, an online survey was sent to 402 Italian surgeons of different specialties. The survey collected information regarding the types of treatment of patients who have previously undergone nSNR, who should undergo surgical rhinoplasty. For those surgeons using hyaluronidase, an additional information was collected.

Results

In a range of time of 2 months (April and May 2021), a total of 72 surgeons replied and completed the survey: out of the 402 questionnaires sent, the response rate was approximately 18%. The majority of respondents (61.5%) replied to inject hyaluronidase (HYAL) in patients who had to undergo a rhinoplasty but reported previous nSNR. Of the surgeons who use HYAL, 70% performed rhinoplasty after a waiting time of 3 to 4 weeks.

Conclusions

Either direct surgical approach or hyaluronidase injection first seems to be a viable options. The use of HYAL before surgery is the choice with the broadest consensus in our survey. However, a larger case-control study with long follow-ups is necessary to understand if in patient seeking surgical rhinoplasty who already received nSNR, the injection of hyaluronidase before surgery is mandatory, recommended, or not.

SUBMITTER: Stagliano S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Although hyaluronidase is known to remove hyaluronic acid fillers, use of low doses has not been well studied. Objective:To assess the effectiveness and dose-related effect of small quantities of hyaluronidase to treat hyaluronic acid filler nodules. Design, Setting, and Participants:Split-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial at an urban academic center. Participants were 9 healthy women. Recruitment and follow-up occurred from February 2013 to March 2014; data analysis occurred from February to July 2016. Interventions:Each participant received aliquots (buttons) of either of 2 types of hyaluronic acid fillers into bilateral upper inner arms, respectively. At 1, 2, and 3 weeks each button was treated with a constant volume (0.1 mL) of variable-dose hyaluronidase (1.5, 3.0, or 9.0 U per 0.1 mL) or saline control. Main Outcomes and Measures:Both a blinded dermatologist and the participant independently assessed detectability. Results:Seventy-two treatment sites on 9 women (mean [SD] age, 45.8 [15.7] years) received all interventions and were analyzed. There was a significant difference in physician rater assessment between saline and hyaluronidase at 4 weeks (visual detection: mean difference = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.46-1.80; P < .001; palpability: mean difference = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.61-1.83; P < .001) and 4 months (visual detection: mean difference = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.33-1.26; P = .001; palpability: mean difference = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.38-1.25; P < .001) that was mirrored by participant self-assessment at 4 weeks (visual detection: mean difference = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.26-1.48; P = .006; palpability: mean difference = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.41-1.77; P < .001) and 4 months (visual detection: mean difference = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53; P < .001; palpability: mean difference = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.01; P < .001), and hyaluronidase was associated with greater resolution of buttons compared with normal saline. The 9.0-unit hyaluronidase injection sites were significantly less palpable than the 1.5-unit sites at both 4 weeks (mean difference = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.01-.99; P = .045) and 4 months (mean difference = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-0.81; P = .007). Dose dependence was more notable for Restylane-L. Conclusions and Relevance:Although very small doses of hyaluronidase can remove hyaluronic acid fillers from patient skin, slightly higher doses often result in more rapid resolution. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01722916.

Project description:BackgroundNatural orifice specimen extraction surgeries (NOSES) have been applied to colorectal cancer (CRC). Different types of NOSES have been proposed. Traditional laparoscopic CRC surgeries (non-NOSES) have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Therefore, the safety and feasibility of NOSES could be clarified by comparing with non-NOSES.MethodsConsecutive cases who underwent NOSE or non-NOSE rectal surgeries were retrospectively collected at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Other inclusion criteria included patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 15 cm of the anal verge, over the age of 18 and undergoing primary laparoscopic rectal resection. Patients who were lost to follow-up or had incomplete information were excluded. Basic characteristics including gender, tumor location, age, staging, treatment, and Body Mass Index (BMI) were analyzed. Short-term outcomes including comorbidities, intra-operative blood loss, hospital stay, gas exhaust time were compared between different NOSES and non-NOSES groups. Long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were also analyzed. Patients were followed-up during the inpatient period, at an outpatient clinic, or by phone call.ResultsA total of 196 NOSES cases and 243 non-NOSES cases were included. There was a sex difference between the two groups and other factors were comparable. Cases were divided into NOSES groups [including extra-abdominal resection (EVER), specimen extraction and extra-abdominal resection (EXER), and intra-abdominal resection and specimen extraction (IREX)] and non-NOSES groups. Differences in sex (P=0.016), BMI (with mean of 22.08, 22.00, 22.53, and 23.26 kg/m2, P=0.003), and staging (P=0.008) were observed between the four groups. There was a difference in the intra-operative blood loss between NOSES and non-NOSES groups (57.05±62.78, 52.65±68.19, 36.52±43.99 vs. 76.12±90.11 mL, P=0.002), in which NOSES groups had less blood loss. Furthermore, NOSES groups showed a better post-operative gas exhaust time (54.68±37.80, 45.06±24.69, 47.91±28.93 vs. 56.94±27.69 hours, P=0.012). NOSES groups also had fewer ileostomies (17 vs. 37, P=0.003). There was no difference in the long-term DFS and OS between the two groups.ConclusionsNOSES in rectal cancer showed better short-term outcomes and had comparable long-term outcomes compared with non-NOSE surgeries.