Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical).

We conducted a thorough examination of the paper titled " Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical)" authored by Gentile et al. in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery with significant interest. The author shared their practical insights gained from employing "fat grafting" and "hyaluronic acid" methods for nasal remodeling in a randomized controlled trial. The research is notably captivating and executed with commendable proficiency. However, we do hold specific reservations concerning the methodologies employed. Precise understanding of the properties of the active substances utilized is fundamental for any medical intervention, and standardization stands as a pivotal element. It is essential to grasp the core characteristics of the administered HAs to potentially uncover links between these attributes, resulting outcomes, and possible complications. In the context of tissue volumization using fillers, rheology-an investigation into material flow and deformation under stress-holds particular importance. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of HA's rheological properties is imperative, especially when selecting an appropriate dermal filler for nasal applications. Among the critical properties of HA are viscosity, elasticity, and cohesiveness. While acknowledging the valuable contributions made by the authors, it is imperative that further analysis takes into account these influential factors during the course of their investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .

Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-Surgical).

BACKGROUND: The author presented his experience using "fat grafting" (FG) and "hyaluronic acid" (HA) techniques in nasal remodeling. OBJECTIVES: The paper aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of FG and HA in nasal remodeling for aesthetic improvement. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. 15 patients affected by soft defects of the dorsum, low and boxy nasal tip, and hidden columella, were treated with FG (study group-SG), comparing results with the control group (CG) (n = 17) treated with hyaluronic acid (HA). Post-operative follow-up took place at 1, 2, 4, weeks, 3, 6, 12 months, and then annually. RESULTS: 73.7% of SG patients showed excellent cosmetic results after 1 year compared with only 29.7% of CG patients. At one-month, major part of people who underwent the treatments (FG and HA) referred to satisfaction with the resulting volume contours (p = 0.389). 88.3% of CG patients versus 53.8% of SG described the HA and FG injection, respectively, as a very comfortable and non-invasive procedure. As expected, patient satisfaction with the appearance of nasal contouring was higher in the FG group at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: FG and HA were safe and effective in this series of cases performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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.