Comparison the Effect of Conventional and Nanofat Injection Methods on Nasolabial Fold Lipofilling: A Case- Control Study.

IF 0.9 Q3 SURGERY World Journal of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.61186/wjps.13.1.24
Mina Mamizadeh, Samaneh Tahmasebi Ghorabi, Zahra Mansourinia, Fariba Shadfar, Arian Karimi Rouzbahani
{"title":"Comparison the Effect of Conventional and Nanofat Injection Methods on Nasolabial Fold Lipofilling: A Case- Control Study.","authors":"Mina Mamizadeh, Samaneh Tahmasebi Ghorabi, Zahra Mansourinia, Fariba Shadfar, Arian Karimi Rouzbahani","doi":"10.61186/wjps.13.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasolabial folds are a common sign of aging, accompanied by various manifestations such as skin and tissue loosening, wrinkles, lip corner drooping, mandibular angle loss, platysmal bands, and skin pigmentation changes. Limited research has explored Nanofat injection methods. this study was done with the aim of comparing the effect of fat injection by two methods, conventional and Nanofat, in nasolabial folds.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study conducted in 2020-2021 at the skin clinic in Ilam, western Iran was a case-control study. Participants were divided into two groups, and lipofilling procedures were performed using conventional and nanofat methods with autologous fat. Data collection utilized a researcher-made questionnaire and radiographic results. Follow-up visits occurred on the 30th, 90th, and 180th days to assess complications and recovery rates. After 6 months, participant's photographs were taken and compared with pre-intervention photographs using the GIAS criteria. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS22 version software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of the participants was 37.80±8.30 yr. The treatment response in the conventional fat injection group was significantly better than the nanofat group (P<0.05). Both groups were satisfied with the treatment methods, but high satisfaction was reported in the conventional group, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both methods of improving wrinkles were effective, but the improvement and response to treatment in the conventional method was better than the Nanofat method, and its effect was felt by the participants for an average period of 3 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":23736,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11088738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61186/wjps.13.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nasolabial folds are a common sign of aging, accompanied by various manifestations such as skin and tissue loosening, wrinkles, lip corner drooping, mandibular angle loss, platysmal bands, and skin pigmentation changes. Limited research has explored Nanofat injection methods. this study was done with the aim of comparing the effect of fat injection by two methods, conventional and Nanofat, in nasolabial folds.

Method: The study conducted in 2020-2021 at the skin clinic in Ilam, western Iran was a case-control study. Participants were divided into two groups, and lipofilling procedures were performed using conventional and nanofat methods with autologous fat. Data collection utilized a researcher-made questionnaire and radiographic results. Follow-up visits occurred on the 30th, 90th, and 180th days to assess complications and recovery rates. After 6 months, participant's photographs were taken and compared with pre-intervention photographs using the GIAS criteria. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS22 version software.

Results: The average age of the participants was 37.80±8.30 yr. The treatment response in the conventional fat injection group was significantly better than the nanofat group (P<0.05). Both groups were satisfied with the treatment methods, but high satisfaction was reported in the conventional group, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.

Conclusion: Both methods of improving wrinkles were effective, but the improvement and response to treatment in the conventional method was better than the Nanofat method, and its effect was felt by the participants for an average period of 3 months.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较传统和纳米脂肪注射法对鼻唇沟脂肪填充的效果:病例对照研究。
背景:鼻唇沟是一种常见的衰老迹象,伴有各种表现,如皮肤和组织松弛、皱纹、唇角下垂、下颌角缺失、板状带和皮肤色素变化。本研究旨在比较传统和纳米脂肪注射两种方法对鼻唇沟的效果:这项研究于 2020-2021 年在伊朗西部伊拉姆的皮肤诊所进行,是一项病例对照研究。参与者被分为两组,使用自体脂肪以传统方法和纳米脂肪方法进行脂肪填充手术。数据收集采用了研究人员自制的调查问卷和影像学结果。在第 30 天、第 90 天和第 180 天进行随访,以评估并发症和恢复率。6 个月后,采用 GIAS 标准拍摄参与者的照片,并与干预前的照片进行比较。数据分析使用 SPSS22 版本软件进行:结果:参与者的平均年龄为(37.80±8.30)岁,传统脂肪注射组的治疗反应明显优于纳米脂肪组(PC结论:两种方法都能有效改善皱纹:两种改善皱纹的方法都有效,但传统方法的改善效果和治疗反应优于纳米脂肪方法,而且参与者平均能在 3 个月内感受到其效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
11.10%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
A Giant Nevus Sebaceous Lesion in an 18 Year-Old Male: A Case Report. Assessing the Utility of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Posters as Educational Aids in Dental Education for Undergraduate Students: Is it Useless or Helpful? Comparison of the Effect of Two Low to High Lateral Osteotomy Methods, Percutaneous and Internal On the Tear Trough and Scleral Show in Patients Undergoing Esthetic Open Rhinoplasty. Comparison the Effect of Conventional and Nanofat Injection Methods on Nasolabial Fold Lipofilling: A Case- Control Study. Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Patients Who Underwent Post Massive Weight Loss Body Contouring Procedures: A Tertiary Center Experience in Bahrain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1