{"title":"上面部 A 型肉毒杆菌毒素应用中的线性注射技术还是点状注射技术很重要?分面随机试验。","authors":"Yunzhu Li, Yixin Sun, Xinze Lan, Tingting Wu, Yiding Xiao, Zenan Xia, Hayson Chenyu Wang, Nanze Yu, Xiaojun Wang, Xiao Long","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000010652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) has been shown to vary depending on injection layer, reconstitution volume, and BoNTA formulation, the effect of injection pattern has rarely been mentioned. The authors compared the therapeutic effects in patients treated with BoNTA with retrograde linear and traditional spot injection techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-eight participants were enrolled in a split-face, patient-blinded randomized clinical trial. Each patient received BoNTA injected with linear injection technique on one side and with spot injection technique on the other side. Outcomes included wrinkle improvement rates (WIRs) of the 2 injection techniques determined by wrinkle scores derived from an Antera 3-dimensional camera, muscle activity assessed by ultrasound, and patient-reported pain rating on a numeric rating scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants completed the study. For forehead wrinkles, WIR on the linear side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week and 1 month ( P < 0.02). For glabellar wrinkles, WIR on the linear injection side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week ( P = 0.04). However, for periorbital wrinkles, WIR on the spot side was significantly larger than that on the linear side at 1 week ( P < 0.03). No significant difference was observed between the injection patterns in terms of muscle contraction and numeric rating scale pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the traditional spot injection, retrograde linear injection was superior in reducing forehead lines and glabellar lines, but less effective in reducing periorbital lines when identical dosages were injected.</p><p><strong>Clinical question/level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic, II.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"656e-665e"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Linear or Spot Injection Technique Matter in Upper Face Botulinum Toxin Type A Application? A Split-Face Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yunzhu Li, Yixin Sun, Xinze Lan, Tingting Wu, Yiding Xiao, Zenan Xia, Hayson Chenyu Wang, Nanze Yu, Xiaojun Wang, Xiao Long\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PRS.0000000000010652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) has been shown to vary depending on injection layer, reconstitution volume, and BoNTA formulation, the effect of injection pattern has rarely been mentioned. The authors compared the therapeutic effects in patients treated with BoNTA with retrograde linear and traditional spot injection techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-eight participants were enrolled in a split-face, patient-blinded randomized clinical trial. Each patient received BoNTA injected with linear injection technique on one side and with spot injection technique on the other side. Outcomes included wrinkle improvement rates (WIRs) of the 2 injection techniques determined by wrinkle scores derived from an Antera 3-dimensional camera, muscle activity assessed by ultrasound, and patient-reported pain rating on a numeric rating scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants completed the study. For forehead wrinkles, WIR on the linear side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week and 1 month ( P < 0.02). For glabellar wrinkles, WIR on the linear injection side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week ( P = 0.04). However, for periorbital wrinkles, WIR on the spot side was significantly larger than that on the linear side at 1 week ( P < 0.03). No significant difference was observed between the injection patterns in terms of muscle contraction and numeric rating scale pain scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with the traditional spot injection, retrograde linear injection was superior in reducing forehead lines and glabellar lines, but less effective in reducing periorbital lines when identical dosages were injected.</p><p><strong>Clinical question/level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic, II.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"656e-665e\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plastic and reconstructive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010652\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000010652","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然 A 型肉毒毒素(BoNTA)的疗效因注射层、重组量和 BoNTA 配方而异,但注射模式的影响却很少被提及。作者比较了采用逆行线性注射技术和传统点状注射技术治疗 BoNTA 患者的疗效:方法:28 名参与者参加了一项分面、患者盲法随机临床试验。每位患者的一侧都接受了以线性注射技术注射的 BoNTA,另一侧则接受了以点注射技术注射的 BoNTA。研究结果包括两种注射技术的皱纹改善率(WIRs)(由 Antera 三维照相机得出的皱纹评分确定)、超声波评估的肌肉活动以及患者报告的数字评分表中的疼痛评分:所有参与者都完成了研究。对于前额皱纹,在 1 周和 1 个月后,线性侧的 WIR 明显大于点状侧的 WIR(P < 0.02)。对于眉间皱纹,线性注射一侧的 WIR 在 1 周时明显大于点状注射一侧(P = 0.04)。然而,对于眶周皱纹,1周后,点状注射一侧的WIR明显大于线状注射一侧(P < 0.03)。在肌肉收缩和疼痛评分方面,两种注射方式没有明显差异:结论:在注射剂量相同的情况下,与传统的点状注射相比,逆行线性注射在减少额头纹和眉间纹方面效果更好,但在减少眶周纹方面效果较差:治疗,II 级。
Does Linear or Spot Injection Technique Matter in Upper Face Botulinum Toxin Type A Application? A Split-Face Randomized Trial.
Background: Although the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) has been shown to vary depending on injection layer, reconstitution volume, and BoNTA formulation, the effect of injection pattern has rarely been mentioned. The authors compared the therapeutic effects in patients treated with BoNTA with retrograde linear and traditional spot injection techniques.
Methods: Twenty-eight participants were enrolled in a split-face, patient-blinded randomized clinical trial. Each patient received BoNTA injected with linear injection technique on one side and with spot injection technique on the other side. Outcomes included wrinkle improvement rates (WIRs) of the 2 injection techniques determined by wrinkle scores derived from an Antera 3-dimensional camera, muscle activity assessed by ultrasound, and patient-reported pain rating on a numeric rating scale.
Results: All participants completed the study. For forehead wrinkles, WIR on the linear side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week and 1 month ( P < 0.02). For glabellar wrinkles, WIR on the linear injection side was significantly larger than that on the spot side at 1 week ( P = 0.04). However, for periorbital wrinkles, WIR on the spot side was significantly larger than that on the linear side at 1 week ( P < 0.03). No significant difference was observed between the injection patterns in terms of muscle contraction and numeric rating scale pain scores.
Conclusions: Compared with the traditional spot injection, retrograde linear injection was superior in reducing forehead lines and glabellar lines, but less effective in reducing periorbital lines when identical dosages were injected.
Clinical question/level of evidence: Therapeutic, II.
期刊介绍:
For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.