rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Non-surgical and filler rhinoplasty · Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology · 2021

APS Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · 2021

Patient Satisfaction After Non-surgical Rhinoplasty Using Hyaluronic Acid: A Literature Review

Radulesco T, De Bonnecaze G, Penicaud M, Dessi P, Michel J.

What this paper says

Pooling eight studies covering 674 filler rhinoplasty patients, satisfaction was 100 percent immediately after injection, 84.7 percent at three months and 96.4 percent at one year.

Overview

Few studies have measured patient satisfaction after filler rhinoplasty using hyaluronic acid. This systematic review, conducted using the PRISMA method, gathered all articles assessing satisfaction with self questionnaires or scales after the procedure. The authors also analysed injection protocols and complications, framing inclusion around the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing and setting framework.

Sections of note

  • Systematic review of eight studies covering 674 patients; the journal assigns level of evidence III.
  • Mean age was 29.5 years, range 19 to 67, with a sex ratio of 0.20.
  • Satisfied or very satisfied ratings were 100 percent immediately after injection, 404 of 404 patients.
  • Satisfaction was 98.2 percent in the following weeks, 628 of 639 patients.
  • Satisfaction was 84.7 percent at 3 months, 333 of 393 patients.
  • Satisfaction was 96.4 percent at one year, though based on only 62 patients.
  • Duration of effect ranged between 8 and 14 months.
  • One local infection was reported, with no skin necrosis and no blindness.
  • Most authors used less than 1 mL of hyaluronic acid per procedure.

What it means for a patient

  • Satisfaction was very high overall but dipped at three months, then was reported high again at one year in a much smaller group.
  • The number of patients assessed fell sharply over time, from 404 immediately to 62 at one year, so late figures rest on few people.
  • The effect lasted roughly 8 to 14 months across the included studies.
  • The serious complications associated with nasal filler were not observed in this pooled group, but 674 patients is too few to estimate rare events.

Why this paper matters

Filler rhinoplasty is marketed on satisfaction and convenience, and this review is one of the few attempts to pool the evidence for those claims. It quantifies both satisfaction and duration. Rare vascular complications and results beyond one year remain outside its reach.

Terms

  • Hyaluronic acid: an injectable gel used to add volume, which can be dissolved.
  • Systematic review: a structured search and pooling of studies meeting set criteria.
  • PRISMA: a standard method for reporting systematic reviews.
  • Visual analog scale: a rating along a line, used to measure satisfaction.
  • Skin necrosis: death of skin from loss of blood supply.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

Abstract

Background: Few studies have focused on assessing patient satisfaction after non-surgical rhinoplasty using hyaluronic acid (HA). The main objective of this study was to perform a systematic review assessing patient satisfaction after non-surgical rhinoplasty using HA.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the PRISMA model. All articles assessing patient satisfaction using self-questionnaires or scales (visual analogic scales, Likert scale) after non-surgical rhinoplasty were included. We also analyzed injection protocols and complications. The criteria for considering studies for the review were based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, timing and setting (PICOTS) framework.

Results: A total of 674 patients were included in eight studies. Mean age was 29.5 years old (min = 19, max = 67, sex ratio = 0.20). Rates of "satisfied" or "very satisfied" patients were 100% immediately after injection (n = 404/404 patients), 98.2% in the weeks following injection (n = 628/639 patients), 84.7% 3 months after injection (n = 333/393 patients) and 96.4% one year after injection (n = 60/62 patients). Duration of HA effectiveness ranged between 8 and 14 months. One local infection (0.001%) but no skin necrosis and no blindness were reported. Most of authors used less than 1 mL of HA per procedure.

Conclusions: Provided precautions for use and indications are observed, and presuming good anatomical knowledge, non-surgical rhinoplasty is an interesting procedure associated with high satisfaction rates.

Level Of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Year
2021
Authors
5
Type
Journal Article, Systematic Review
Access
Open access
On this site
Summary and abstract

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2021.

  1. ASJ
    2021PMID 33945612Summary
  2. ASJ
    2021PMID 32628267Summary
  3. APS
    2021PMID 32974739Summary
  4. APS
    2021PMID 32875438Summary
  5. APS
    2021PMID 32747985Summary
  6. APS
    2021PMID 33811290Summary
  7. APS
    2021PMID 33063160Summary
  8. APS
    2021PMID 33782723