Comparison of the Degradability of Hyaluronic Acid by Ovine and Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for adverse events to hyaluronic acid filler is the use of hyaluronidase (HYAL); however, the dose and dilution are not standardized. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine differential dilutions and concentrations of HYAL, and to compare the effectiveness of ovine and human HYAL. METHODS: Fillers were selected for study based on a variety of rheologic factors. A 0.2-mL dose of product was selected for use based on previous studies. Degradation was assessed by comparing both ovine and recombinant HYAL over a range of concentrations and dilutions. RESULTS: In the 2:1 dilution group, Restylane Lidocaine (Galderma, Lausanne, Switzerland) was degraded by 100 U of ovine HYAL after 50 minutes. No other filler was completely degraded; Restylane Lyft (Galderma) was partially degraded after 1 hour of treatment with 100 U of HYAL. In both the 3:1 and 4:1 dilution groups, Restylane Shaype (Galderma) and Restylane Lyft fillers were most susceptible to degradation, dissolving within 30 minutes with 100 U of recombinant HYAL and within 40 minutes with 100 U of ovine HYAL. Juvéderm and RHA4 fillers were the most resistant, requiring 300 U of HYAL for degradation within 1 hour. Beyond a 3:1 dilution ratio, no further improvement was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that 300 U of hyaluronidase is sufficient to degrade 0.2 mL of the most resistant hyaluronic acid fillers within 1 hour. Importantly, a minimum dilution of 3:1 should be used to provide adequate fluid for dissolving filler. Ovine HYAL appears to be just as effective as recombinant HYAL in terms of dissolving product.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".