Safety of infraorbital hyaluronic acid injections: Outcomes of a meta‐analysis on prospective clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hollowing of the infraorbital region represents a common concern among aesthetic patients. In the past decade, an increasing number of patients have resorted to noninvasive aesthetic procedures to treat these concerns. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety profile of infraorbital hyaluronic acid injections for aesthetic rejuvenation. METHODS: Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials, investigators sought to answer the research question "Does the use of needle versus cannula during infraorbital HA injections result in the same incidence rate of adverse events?" The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence rates of ecchymosis and edema in subject groups treated with a needle or cannula. RESULTS: Subjects treated with needles had a statistically significant greater incidence rate of ecchymosis, compared to those treated with cannula. Conversely, subjects treated with cannula had a statistically significant greater incidence rate of edema, compared to those treated with needles. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rates of adverse events following the administration of hyaluronic acid injections in the infraorbital region vary depending on whether a needle or cannula is used; with needles being associated with a greater risk of ecchymosis and cannulas being associated with a greater risk of edema. These findings should be discussed with patients prior to treatment consultation. Finally, as with most techniques, it is usually prudent to develop expertise with one technique before using a second, especially in cases where both approaches can be used and have different adverse event profiles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".