Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

BACKGROUND: Midface volume deficiency is a common aesthetic concern that can be addressed with dermal fillers. YVOIRE Y-Solution 720 (YYS720) is a hyaluronic acid (HA)-based filler designed for midface augmentation. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of YYS720 in improving midface volume. METHODS: Asian participants with mild to severe midface volume loss were randomly assigned to receive either YYS720 injection (n = 173) or no treatment (control, n = 65). Midface volume was evaluated at 4, 14, and 26 weeks using Midface Volume Deficit Severity Rating Scale for Asian Faces (MFVDA-SRS) for both YYS720 and control groups. Additionally, for YYS720, midface volume was evaluated 52 weeks after the last injection. RESULTS: At Week 26, the proportion of participants with ≥ 1-grade reduction on the MFVDA-SRS score was 82.0% (137/167 participants) for YYS720 and 5.1% (3/59 participants) for control with difference (95% confidence interval, CI) between the groups of 77.0% (66.8, 84.0), demonstrating the statistically significant improvement of YYS7720 in midface augmentation. At Week 52, the proportion of participants with ≥1-grade reduction on the MFVDA-SRS score was 76.2% for YYS720 group. Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) responder rates by participants were consistently high in YYS720 group across all time points up to Week 26. No specific safety concern was detected. Common treatment site responses included swelling, tenderness, and pain, which were generally mild and transient. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports that YVOIRE Y-Solution 720 is an effective and safe option for midface volume augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: 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 .

INTRODUCTION: Facial wound healing often results in unsatisfactory scarring with significant aesthetic and psychological impact. Botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) has appeared as a promising intervention to improve cosmetic outcomes by reducing muscle tension during wound healing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BTX-A in facial wound management. METHODS: We conducted a detailed scientific literature database from inception to 15th of May, 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. All eligible studies comparing BTX-A with control interventions for facial wound healing were included. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) scores and scar width measurements. Secondary outcomes included Vancouver Scar Scale scores, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Meta-regression investigated dose-response relationships. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with total of 607 participants met inclusion criteria. Botulinum toxin A significantly improved VAS scores (standardized mean difference 0.87, 95% CI: 0.45-1.29, P-value<0.001) and reduced scar width by 0.35 mm (95% CI: -0.52 to -0.18, P-value<0.001). Meta-regression (R²=24%, P-value=0.032) demonstrated a dose-response relationship with effect size increasing by 0.08 SMD units per U/cm. The 5 to 15 U/cm range was identified through safety-efficacy modeling, where doses <5 U/cm showed suboptimal efficacy (SMD 0.65), 5 to 15 U/cm achieved optimal balance (SMD 0.78-1.18, adverse events 1.1%-6.2%), and >15 U/cm showed diminishing returns with increased adverse events. Adverse event rates were comparable between groups (3.9% versus 3.4%, P-value=0.75), with no serious complications reported. CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin A demonstrates significant efficacy in improving facial wound cosmetic outcomes with an excellent safety profile. Evidence-based dosing of 5 to 15 U/cm provides the best benefit-risk ratio. On the basis of cost-effectiveness evaluation of included studies, the intervention demonstrates favorable benefit-risk ratios for wounds in high-visibility facial areas, with economic modeling suggesting better utility for longer wounds where scar prevention outweighs treatment costs.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC), may improve postoperative recovery and cosmetic outcomes but faces concerns about complications and technical demands. This randomized controlled trial compares SILC and CLC using conventional laparoscopic instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 891 patients were randomized to SILC (n = 449) or CLC (n = 442). Operative parameters, postoperative recovery, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. Primary endpoints were operative time, blood loss, and complication rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, pain scores, and cosmetic satisfaction (Vancouver scar scores). RESULTS: SILC showed similar operative time (55.11 ± 22.88 vs 51.81 ± 23.61 min, p = 0.907) and blood loss (10.89 ± 26.37 vs 10.14 ± 14.38 ml, p = 0.475) versus CLC. SILC patients had shorter hospitalization (1.94 ± 1.87 vs 2.25 ± 2.49 days, p < 0.001), lower pain scores (2.19 ± 0.88 vs 2.80 ± 0.75, p = 0.016), and better scar outcomes (2.41 ± 1.81 vs 3.54 ± 1.61, p = 0.020). Complication rates like bile leakage and hernias were marginally higher in SILC but not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: SILC is a safe, effective alternative to CLC, offering better postoperative recovery and cosmetic results. However, patient selection and surgical expertise are crucial to optimize outcomes and minimize complications.