The journal of sexual medicine · 2019
A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between Hyaluronic Acid and Polylactic Acid Filler Injection in Penile Augmentation: A Multicenter, Patient/Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Dae Yul, Ko Kyungtae, Lee Seong Ho, Lee Won Ki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Studies about the clinical utility of fillers on penile augmentation (PA) are lacking. Furthermore, no randomized study has compared the utilities of fillers.
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) filler injection for PA.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized patient/evaluator-blind, comparative multicenter study consisted of an initial 2-week baseline period and 48-week patient/evaluator-blind post-injection period. 72 patients with small penis syndrome were enrolled from 3 institutions between March-July 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the HA group, comprising 36 patients injected with HA, and the PLA group, comprising 36 patients injected with PLA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Penile girth and satisfaction were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks after injection.
RESULTS: Penile girth increases adequately lasted ≤48 weeks in both groups (16.95 ± 10.53 and 13.49 ± 9.98 mm of mean increase in the HA and PLA groups, respectively; P < .001). The mean penile girth increase in the HA group was significantly greater than that in the PLA group at 4 weeks (P < .001). Subsequently, it gradually decreased and was no longer significantly different at 48 weeks (P = .075). Satisfaction levels increased after injection and were maintained ≤48 weeks. No significant differences were observed in the overall satisfaction level between the groups (P > .05). Filler injection-related adverse events were mild and transient and occurred in 1 and 3 patients in the HA and PLA groups, respectively.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of HA and PLA fillers, which are the most commonly used soft tissue fillers for PA.
STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS: This study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare the efficacy and safety between different filler injections for human PA. However, it was impossible to perform a researcher-blinded trial because of the unique properties of fillers, and 31 patients (43.1%) were dropped during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Both HA and PLA filler injections for PA led to a significant augmentative effect without serious adverse events and had clinically comparable efficacy and safety. Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, et al. A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between Hyaluronic Acid and Polylactic Acid Filler Injection in Penile Augmentation: A Multicenter, Patient/Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Trial. J Sex Med 2019;16:577-585.
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) filler injection for PA.
METHODS: This prospective, randomized patient/evaluator-blind, comparative multicenter study consisted of an initial 2-week baseline period and 48-week patient/evaluator-blind post-injection period. 72 patients with small penis syndrome were enrolled from 3 institutions between March-July 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the HA group, comprising 36 patients injected with HA, and the PLA group, comprising 36 patients injected with PLA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Penile girth and satisfaction were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks after injection.
RESULTS: Penile girth increases adequately lasted ≤48 weeks in both groups (16.95 ± 10.53 and 13.49 ± 9.98 mm of mean increase in the HA and PLA groups, respectively; P < .001). The mean penile girth increase in the HA group was significantly greater than that in the PLA group at 4 weeks (P < .001). Subsequently, it gradually decreased and was no longer significantly different at 48 weeks (P = .075). Satisfaction levels increased after injection and were maintained ≤48 weeks. No significant differences were observed in the overall satisfaction level between the groups (P > .05). Filler injection-related adverse events were mild and transient and occurred in 1 and 3 patients in the HA and PLA groups, respectively.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of HA and PLA fillers, which are the most commonly used soft tissue fillers for PA.
STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS: This study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare the efficacy and safety between different filler injections for human PA. However, it was impossible to perform a researcher-blinded trial because of the unique properties of fillers, and 31 patients (43.1%) were dropped during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Both HA and PLA filler injections for PA led to a significant augmentative effect without serious adverse events and had clinically comparable efficacy and safety. Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, et al. A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between Hyaluronic Acid and Polylactic Acid Filler Injection in Penile Augmentation: A Multicenter, Patient/Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Trial. J Sex Med 2019;16:577-585.