rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Non-surgical and filler rhinoplasty · 2022

PRS-GO Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2022

Hybrid Nasal Filler: Combining Agarose Gel and Hyaluronic Acid for Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty

Buhsem O, Kirazoglu A.

What this paper says

In 32 patients treated with two different fillers placed in different parts of the nose, mean satisfaction was 9.09 out of 10 immediately and 9 out of 10 at two weeks, with no major complications.

Overview

The authors argue no single filler suits every part of the nose, so they developed a hybrid model using two materials with different properties. Hyaluronic acid, which attracts water, was used in one set of locations, and agarose gel, which does not attract water and is firmer, in another. Patients presenting for non surgical nasal correction over a two year period were enrolled.

Sections of note

  • Case series of 32 patients, mean age 27 years.
  • Hyaluronic acid was injected into the skin at 0.1 mL per point at the tip defining points and the supratip.
  • Agarose gel was injected onto the bone at 0.4 to 0.7 mL at the radix and 0.4 to 0.6 mL at the nasal spine.
  • Improvement was assessed two weeks later using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is exceptional improvement.
  • Patient satisfaction was rated from 0 to 10.
  • Mean satisfaction was 9.09 after injection and 9 at two weeks.
  • Clinical evaluation scores were 1.72 out of 5 after injection and 1.69 at two weeks.
  • No major complication was observed.

What it means for a patient

  • Different regions of the nose were treated with different materials chosen for their firmness and water attraction.
  • Satisfaction and clinician assessment held steady across the two weeks measured.
  • Follow up was only two weeks, so nothing is known about duration or later complications.
  • Thirty two patients cannot detect the rare vascular complications associated with nasal filler.

Why this paper matters

Filler rhinoplasty usually uses one product throughout, and the properties needed at the bridge differ from those needed at the tip. This series tests matching material to location. Two week follow up in 32 patients establishes feasibility, not safety or durability.

Terms

  • Hyaluronic acid: an injectable gel that attracts water and can be dissolved.
  • Agarose gel: a firmer injectable material that does not attract water.
  • G prime: a measure of a filler's firmness and resistance to deformation.
  • Supraperiosteal: placed directly on the bone, beneath its covering membrane.
  • Nasal spine: the small bony projection at the base of the nose.
  • Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale: a rating of how much appearance changed after a procedure.

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

Abstract

Unlabelled: Given its structural properties, it would be a mistake to assume that a single type of filler fits perfectly to each anatomical region of the nose in nonsurgical rhinoplasty procedures. Therefore, we aimed to develop a hybrid treatment model by applying two different structural types of fillers. Hyaluronic acid (HA), a hydrophilic material, and agarose gel (AG), a nonhydrophilic and high G-prime material, were used in the study according to their advantages and disadvantages.

Methods: Patients who presented to the office desiring filler treatment for nonsurgical correction of the nose in a 2-year period were enrolled in the study. HA was used intradermally 0.1 ml per each point in the tip defining points and supratip. Injections of 0.4-0.7 and 0.4-0.6 ml AG were used supraperiosteally in the radix and nasal spine, respectively. Clinical improvement was evaluated two weeks later using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale from 1 to 5 (1: exceptional improvement; 5: worsened patient). Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a scale from 0 to 10 (0: not satisfied; 10: very satisfied).

Results: A total of 32 patients (mean age: 27 years) were enrolled in the study. Mean score of patient satisfaction was 9.09 of 10 after injection and 9 of 10 after 2 weeks. Clinical evaluation scores after injection were 1.72 of 5 and 1.69 of 5 on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. No major complication was observed.

Conclusion: The HA and AG filler hybrid concept applied in different anatomical locations represents a safe and convenient option for nonsurgical rhinoplasty procedures.

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

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Year
2022
Authors
2
Type
Journal Article
Access
Open access
On this site
Summary and abstract

Start here

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

Related papers

Same topic, 2022.

  1. APS
    2022PMID 34109452Full text
  2. CPS
    Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty
    Rohrich R, Alleyne B, Novak M et al.
    2022PMID 34782136Summary
  3. FPS
    2022PMID 35158387Summary
  4. FPSAM
    2022PMID 34448622
  5. FPS Clin
    2022PMID 35501055Summary
  6. FPS Clin
    Liquid Rhinoplasty
    Saad N, Stallworth CL
    2022PMID 35934437Summary
  7. FPS Clin
    2022PMID 35501057Summary
  8. FPS Clin
    2022PMID 35501050Summary