Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Calcium Hydroxylapatite Combined with CO
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) filler injections combined with CO
methodsA prospective, single-center, randomized controlled study was conducted on 160 participants, who were average randomly assigned to either an observation group (A) or a control group (B). Group A received two sessions of CaHA (1-month interval) after AFL 1 month, while Group B received AFL monotherapy. Efficacy was assessed by pre- and post-operation of standardized photographic images. Additionally, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were documented.
resultsCompared with baseline, the quantitative global scarring grading system scores decreased significantly in both groups (p < 0.001), with greater reduction observed in group A (p < 0.001). The acne scar rating scale analysis revealed the combination therapy's effectiveness across all scar subtypes (p < 0.001) and demonstrated comparable efficacy for boxcar and rolling scars (p = 1.000), both of which showed superiority to icepick scars (p < 0.001). Mild AEs are occurred in both group, such as pain, edema, crusting, and transient post-inflammatory erythema (PIE), CaHA injection may pose a risk of ecchymosis. Nevertheless, long-term PIE (lasting over 4 weeks) (p < 0.001) and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (p = 0.002) in group A exhibited significantly shorter healing times, accelerated healing by an average of 3.8 weeks and 3.7 weeks.
conclusionThe combination of CaHA with AFL demonstrates both efficacy and safety for atrophic acne scars, particularly boxcar and rolling subtypes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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 .
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.