Needle versus Cannula to Treat Tear Trough: A Prospective Study Comparing both Methods

Area of Science:

• Dermatology
• Plastic Surgery
• Medical Imaging

Background:

• Comparing needle and cannula techniques for hyaluronic acid filler injections is crucial for understanding optimal application and potential adverse events.
• In vivo clinical comparison using advanced imaging modalities like ultrasound and MRI provides objective data on filler placement and tissue response.

Purpose of the Study:

• To clinically compare the efficacy and safety of needle versus cannula techniques for hyaluronic acid filler injections.
• To evaluate the precision of product deposition and patient-reported outcomes for both techniques.
• To assess long-term results and adverse events associated with each injection method.

Main Methods:

• Ten adults received hyaluronic acid injections using a 25G cannula on one side and a 31G needle on the other, with assessments at multiple time points up to 365 days.
• Standard photography, Vectra H2 3D imaging, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging were employed for objective assessment.
• Patient satisfaction and adverse events, including bruising and edema, were systematically evaluated.

Main Results:

• Both techniques achieved natural aesthetic results with high patient satisfaction.
• Cannula use was associated with minimally less bruising but less precise and more superficial product placement.
• Needle use resulted in a more noticeable immediate change, less edema, and a more comfortable procedure, though precision differences diminished over time.

Conclusions:

• Cannulas offer reduced bruising but may compromise injection precision compared to thin needles.
• While initial precision differs, this distinction becomes less apparent as the filler integrates over time.
• Both methods are safe for hyaluronic acid fillers, with minimal adverse events and long-lasting product presence observed.