SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Conventional High-Dose vs Low-Dose Hyaluronidase for Skin Necrosis after Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Systematic Review and Pilot Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-Guided Low-Dose Hyaluronidase for Infraorbital Artery Occlusion with Secondary Gingival Ischemia After Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injection: A Case Report.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Study of Polycaprolactone Filler After Hyaluronidase for Facial Overfilled Syndrome.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Secretome-Assisted Regenerative Therapy for Hyaluronic Acid Filler-Induced Vascular Occlusion: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- A Review: Causes, Consequences, and Management Strategies of Facial Overfilling.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Review
- Effects of hyaluronic acid on skin at the cellular level: a systematic review.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronidase remains the mainstay treatment for skin necrosis due to vascular occlusion after hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers. There is wide variability in protocols for the administration of hyaluronidase. Most protocols, however, lack strong evidence regarding hyaluronidase dosages.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and pilot meta-analysis, searching four international databases from inception until December 2023 for clinical studies reporting on two or more patients receiving hyaluronidase for skin necrosis after hyaluronic acid fillers. Random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the pooled proportion of complete scar resolution. We rated intra-study risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
resultsWe included 15 studies totaling 223 patients. The pooled proportion of complete scar resolution after hyaluronidase administration was 77.8% (95%-CI: 65.5% to 86.6%, p
conclusionA higher proportion of patients receiving low doses (500IU or less) (88.1%) had complete scar resolution compared to patients receiving high doses (69.7%), though not statistically significant (p=0.18). Future studies should provide more granular details on their protocols to benefit the formulation of evidence-based guidelines in future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42024538661.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39214904What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.