Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2026
Multicenter, Randomized Split-Face Trial of a Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Fillers With Lidocaine for Nasolabial Fold Correction.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNasolabial folds (NLFs) are common age-related facial lines, often treated with dermal fillers. Princess FILLER Lidocaine (PFL; now saypha filler Lidocaine) and Juvéderm Ultra XC (JUXC) are both hyaluronic acid-based fillers used for this purpose.
objectivesThe aim of the authors of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PFL in reducing NLF severity compared with JUXC using a split-face study design.
methodsIn this randomized, subject- and investigator-blinded multicenter study, patients with moderate-to-severe NLFs received PFL on one side of the face and JUXC on the other. Baseline NLF severity was assessed using the 5-point NLF-Severity Rating Scale (NLF-SRS). Follow-up assessments occurred at Weeks 12, 24, 36, and/or 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of NLF-SRS responders at Week 24. Secondary endpoints included assessments by photographic reviewers and treating investigators, along with Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) ratings. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting and patient diaries. FACE-Q questionnaires evaluated patient satisfaction. Repeat treatment was permitted at Week 36 or 48 if needed.
resultsAt Week 24, PFL demonstrated noninferiority to JUXC (82.2% vs 81.9% responders; difference 0.37%, P < .0001). Secondary assessments confirmed this finding. Adverse events occurred in 24.4% of patients post PFL, with most being mild to moderate. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were rare (1.1%).
conclusionsPFL is a noninferior alternative to JUXC for treating moderate-to-severe NLFs, with comparable efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (THERAPEUTIC): For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
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.