Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Mar;137(3):799-808.
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000479965.14775.f0.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine-Containing Monophasic Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Nasolabial Folds

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine-Containing Monophasic Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Nasolabial Folds

Hong Jin Joo et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers are most frequently used for unwanted wrinkles. Recently, lidocaine has been incorporated into hyaluronic acid fillers to reduce injection discomfort.

Methods: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, intraindividual trial was designed to compare a new lidocaine-containing monophasic hyaluronic acid filler (Neuramis Deep Lidocaine) with a lidocaine-containing biphasic hyaluronic acid filler (Restylane Perlane-L) in moderate to severe nasolabial folds. Fifty-eight patients with moderate to severe nasolabial folds were randomized to an injection of Neuramis or Perlane-L in the left or right side of the face. Clinical efficacy and safety were assessed by blinded investigators, independent expert panels, and patients based on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale at weeks 8, 16, and 24 after the injection.

Results: Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale improvement from baseline with Neuramis (1.64 ± 0.74) was significantly greater than with Perlane-L (1.45 ± 0.54) at week 24 (p < 0.05). The mean Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale score at week 24 was 2.36 ± 0.55 for Neuramis and 2.00 ± 0.50 for Perlane-L (p < 0.05). However, the difference in pain reduction between Neuramis- and Perlane-L-treated sides was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of Neuramis are comparable to those of Perlane-L in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale improvement for the management of nasolabial folds. Furthermore, the difference in pain reduction between the two fillers was not clinically significant.

Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, I.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cohen JL, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, et al. Systematic review of clinical trials of small- and large-gel-particle hyaluronic acid injectable fillers for aesthetic soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:205–231
    1. Prager W, Wissmueller E, Havermann I, et al. A prospective, split-face, randomized, comparative study of safety and 12-month longevity of three formulations of hyaluronic acid dermal filler for treatment of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38:1143–1150
    1. Brandt FS, Cazzaniga A. Hyaluronic acid gel fillers in the management of facial aging. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3:153–159
    1. Wahl G. European evaluation of a new hyaluronic acid filler incorporating lidocaine. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2008;7:298–303
    1. Monheit GD, Campbell RM, Neugent H, et al. Reduced pain with use of proprietary hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of nasolabial folds: A patient-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36:94–101

Publication types

MeSH terms