Nonsurgical rhinoplasty using the hyaluronic acid filler <scp>VYC‐25L</scp>: Safety and patient satisfaction in a retrospective analysis of 492 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aesthetic treatment of the nose with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers is increasingly popular but carries a small risk of major complications. Large patient cohorts are required to better understand this risk. AIMS: To evaluate safety and patient satisfaction in a large series of nonsurgical rhinoplasty treatments with the HA filler, VYC-25L, in "real world" clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive adult patients undergoing nonsurgical rhinoplasty with VYC-25L by a single injector between January 2020 and July 2022. All patients received initial treatment (typically ~0.3-0.5 mL of filler) and touch-up at 4-6 weeks (~0.1-0.3 mL). Safety data were collected throughout a mean follow-up of 11.1 months. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Nose and Satisfaction with Outcome questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 492 patients were included (984 treatment sessions including touch-ups). Of these, 467 (94.9%) were female and the mean age was 30.0 years. All treatments were associated with early transient edema; other adverse events included bruising (n = 123; 25%), residual asymmetry (n = 18; 3.7%), and suspected localized vascular occlusion (n = 3; 0.6%). The latter cases were easily resolved with hyaluronidase injection plus oral steroid and aspirin. No patients experienced infection, necrosis, blindness, lumps, granuloma, or delayed-onset nodules. Mean Rasch-transformed FACE-Q scores were 90.2% for Satisfaction with Nose and 99.2% for Satisfaction with Outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients treated in routine practice based on a systematic approach, nonsurgical rhinoplasty with VYC-25L was safe and effective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".