A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Efficacy and safety of a new hyaluronic acid dermal filler in the treatment of moderate nasolabial folds: 6-month interim results of a randomized, evaluator-blinded, intra-individual comparison study. | LitMetric

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers such as Restylane(®) are frequently used for the correction of facial soft tissue defects.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel HA filler, Emervel(®) Classic, with those of Restylane in the treatment of moderate nasolabial folds.

Methods: This was a split-face, randomized and evaluator-blinded comparison study. Subjects were randomized to receive an injection of Emervel Classic or Restylane on their left or right side. Efficacy was evaluated based on the change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) from baseline. Local tolerability was assessed based on subject diary, which recorded the severity of erythema, oedema/swelling, bruising, pain/tenderness and pruritus during the first 3 weeks after injection.

Results: The interim results 6 months after injection are reported. At week 24, the mean improvement in WSRS from baseline was 0.83 ± 0.51 for Emervel Classic, similar to that for Restylane (0.90 ± 0.57). A similar volume of both fillers was injected. Most local tolerability events were mild and transient. Erythema, oedema/swelling and pain/tenderness were significantly less severe and disappeared faster with Emervel Classic than with Restylane (at least p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Emervel Classic provides similar efficacy and better overall local tolerability compared with Restylane 6 months after treatment of moderate nasolabial folds.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14764172.2011.571699DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

classic restylane
16
emervel classic
16
treatment moderate
12
moderate nasolabial
12
local tolerability
12
efficacy safety
8
hyaluronic acid
8
nasolabial folds
8
randomized evaluator-blinded
8
comparison study
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!