| Title |
Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: can adjunctive lidocaine improve patient satisfaction without decreasing efficacy or duration?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s11251 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynnelle Smith, Kimberly Cockerham |
| Abstract |
Hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers are the most widely used injectables to augment facial volume without surgery. HA dermal fillers are popular because of their ease of administration, predictable effectiveness, good safety profile, and quick patient recovery. The most common patient complaint is pain. Our goal is to review the current literature on HA fillers and compare outcomes with and without lidocaine. We found adjunctive lidocaine significantly decreases pain during injection and postinjection with corresponding increased patient satisfaction. The efficacy and safety profile appears unchanged. Rare complications with HA fillers and those associated with constituents of the product, contaminants, and lidocaine are reviewed. The corrective effects of HA fillers are temporary; repeat treatment is required to maintain results. Minimizing pain is crucial to optimize patient satisfaction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 23 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2023.
All research outputs
#7,055,117
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#480
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,733
of 120,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.