These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A multicenter, 47-month study of safety and efficacy of calcium hydroxylapatite for soft tissue augmentation of nasolabial folds and other areas of the face.
    Author: Sadick NS, Katz BE, Roy D.
    Journal: Dermatol Surg; 2007 Dec; 33 Suppl 2():S122-6; discussion S126-7. PubMed ID: 18086049.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Each soft tissue filler product has its own unique profile in terms of adverse events. In this large-scale study, we investigated the safety profile of Radiesse, an injectable calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) implant, in treatment of nasolabial folds and other areas of the face. We also investigated the efficacy in a subset of the larger patient group. METHODS: After obtaining informed consent from the subjects, researchers injected CaHA at two treatment centers into 113 patients (100 women and 13 men, ranging in age from 26 to 78 years) for a variety of facial aesthetic applications over a period of 47 months. Seventy-five patients had a single injection session; 38 had multiple sessions. Most patients (102) received 1.0 mL of CaHA per session; 12 received 2.0 mL per session. Typically, CaHA was administered with a 27-gauge 0.5- or 1 1/4-in. needle. RESULTS: Safety. Of 113 patients, only 7 reported minor adverse events that were short-term and resolved within 1 month: transient ecchymosis (3), nongranulatomous submucosal nodules of the lip (2), and inflammation and edema (2). Efficacy. Efficacy ratings were performed for a subset of patients (n=41). On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=unsatisfactory; 5=excellent), the mean patient evaluation score for look and feel of the implant was 4.6; the mean physician scores for the look and feel of the implant were 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. During the 6-month follow-up visit, patients' mean ratings of the look and feel of the implant were 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. The physician's mean ratings for the look and feel of the implant were 4.5 and 4.9, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, CaHA performed well, with a favorable safety profile, high patient satisfaction (90% of patients reported very good or excellent results), and good durability. We are especially pleased with the low incidence of adverse events coupled with the favorable responses from the patients themselves due to longevity of correction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]