A Randomized, Crossover-Controlled Evaluator-Blinded Trial Evaluating Cannula- vs Needle-Assisted Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Infraorbital Deformities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periorbital deformities can be corrected utilizing hyaluronic acid injections. However, previous studies have not evaluated the effect of utilizing different injection techniques (eg, a needle vs cannula) on efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of HA for the correction of periorbital deformities when utilizing either needle or cannula-assisted injections. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized-controlled (with crossover), evaluator-blinded study. Forty-two patients with a mean age of 44.82 ± 11.62 years were recruited. Patients underwent 2 treatment sessions, spaced 2 weeks apart, and attended 1 follow-up visit at Week 4, following the last treatment. Patients were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio, whereby 18 patients received injections by needle, 18 received injections by cannula, and 6 were randomized to act as their own control at baseline. Those in the control group were randomized (n = 3) to needle or cannula injections at Week 4 and proceeded with the same visit schedule as those treated at baseline. At Weeks 2 and 4 posttreatment, patient satisfaction was evaluated and information on adverse effects was collected. A blinded reviewer assessed patient imagery utilizing standardized efficacy scales. RESULTS: Chi-square tests did not reveal any associations between treatment group and efficacy, safety, or patient satisfaction scores (P ≥ 0.05). Adverse effects reported in patient diaries were mild to moderate in nature and expected. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of infraorbital deformities, hyaluronic acid injections performed utilizing either a cannula or needle result in similarly high efficacy and safety ratios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".