ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2025
Comparison of the Degradability of Hyaluronic Acid by Ovine and Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and Effectiveness of Two High-G' Soft Tissue Fillers for Chin Augmentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Comparator-Controlled, Evaluator-Blinded Trial.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Trial
- The clinical evidence and strategic use of hyaluronidase in spinal interventions.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Review
- Aesthetic Chin Retrusion Enhancement With Non-animal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid-High Density (NASHA-HD™) Filler.Cureus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mainstay of treatment for adverse events to hyaluronic acid filler is the use of hyaluronidase (HYAL); however, the dose and dilution are not standardized.
objectivesThe objective of this study was to examine differential dilutions and concentrations of HYAL, and to compare the effectiveness of ovine and human HYAL.
methodsFillers were selected for study based on a variety of rheologic factors. A 0.2-mL dose of product was selected for use based on previous studies. Degradation was assessed by comparing both ovine and recombinant HYAL over a range of concentrations and dilutions.
resultsIn the 2:1 dilution group, Restylane Lidocaine (Galderma, Lausanne, Switzerland) was degraded by 100 U of ovine HYAL after 50 minutes. No other filler was completely degraded; Restylane Lyft (Galderma) was partially degraded after 1 hour of treatment with 100 U of HYAL. In both the 3:1 and 4:1 dilution groups, Restylane Shaype (Galderma) and Restylane Lyft fillers were most susceptible to degradation, dissolving within 30 minutes with 100 U of recombinant HYAL and within 40 minutes with 100 U of ovine HYAL. Juvéderm and RHA4 fillers were the most resistant, requiring 300 U of HYAL for degradation within 1 hour. Beyond a 3:1 dilution ratio, no further improvement was observed.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that 300 U of hyaluronidase is sufficient to degrade 0.2 mL of the most resistant hyaluronic acid fillers within 1 hour. Importantly, a minimum dilution of 3:1 should be used to provide adequate fluid for dissolving filler. Ovine HYAL appears to be just as effective as recombinant HYAL in terms of dissolving product.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.