Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42039797›Full record

ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026

Hyaluronic Acid Injection Techniques for Lip Augmentation-Comparison of Linear, Retrograde, and Microdeposit Approaches: A Systematic Review.

Victor Rene Miranda Cerna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is widely used for lip augmentation; however, the safety and performance of injection techniques and instruments (needle vs cannula) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of HA injection techniques for lip augmentation and to assess patient satisfaction, injected volume, and associations with technique, instrument, and HA product. A systematic review was conducted accordance with PRISMA 2020 and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251123328). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, SciELO, and Scopus were searched from January 1, 2010, to August 16, 2025, for studies involving adults undergoing HA lip augmentation. Eligible designs included randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and systematic reviews. The primary outcome was safety, defined by type and timing of complications. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, injected volume, and associations with technique, instrument, and HA product. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and findings were synthesized narratively. Sixteen studies including 3692 patients were analyzed. Most protocols used 1 to 2 mL per session, commonly employing linear retrograde techniques with serial puncture, fan patterns, or microdeposits. Adverse events were mild and transient, including edema, ecchymosis, tenderness, and nodularity, with no reported cases of vascular occlusion or vision-threatening events. Needle-only and combined needle plus cannula approaches showed comparable safety profiles. Patient satisfaction was high in most patients. HA lip augmentation appears effective and generally safe when performed by experienced injectors. Current evidence does not support a single superior technique, instrument, or HA formulation. Standardized studies are needed to define best-practice protocols.

Identifiers

PMID42039797
PMCPMC13108440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.