RESUMO
Background@#Osteomas are benign, slow-growing bone tumors that can be classified as central, peripheral, or extraskeletal. Central osteomas arise from the endosteum, peripheral osteomas from the periosteum, and extraskeletal osteomas within the muscle. Frontal peripheral osteomas are mainly encountered in plastic surgery. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients with frontal peripheral osteomas. @*Methods@#We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who visited our hospital with frontal peripheral osteomas between January 2014 and June 2022. We analyzed the following variables: age, sex, tumor type (sessile or pedunculated), single or multiple, size, history of head trauma, operation, and recurrence. @*Results@#A total of 39 patients and 41 osteomas were analyzed, of which 29 osteomas (71%) were sessile and 12 osteomas (29%) were pedunculated. The size of the osteomas ranged from 4 to 30 mm, with an average size of 10 mm. The age of patients ranged from 4 to 78 years with a mean age of 52 years. There were seven men (18%) and 32 women (82%), and the man-to-woman ratio was 1:4.6. Two patients (5%) had multiple masses, with two osteomas in each, while only two patients (5%) had a history of head trauma. Twenty-nine patients (74%) underwent ostectomy by a direct approach, and none of the patients experienced recurrence. @*Conclusion@#The epidemiologic data of our study will help plastic surgeons encounter frontal peripheral osteomas in the field to provide proper management for their patients.
RESUMO
Background@#The longstanding and common use of hyaluronic acid (HA) has driven the expanded development of various commercial HA fillers. However, differences in the components of these HA fillers lead to variations in their effect. We compared the in vivo safety and efficacy of biphasic HA (BHA) and a new monophasic HA (MHA) for improving facial wrinkles. We investigated differences in outcomes after their injection into nasolabial folds (NLFs) using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), patient satisfaction using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and pain using a visual analog scale (VAS). We also performed a safety assessment of the two fillers. @*Methods@#This matched-pair, double-blind, randomized study compared the degree of temporal wrinkle improvement in the NLFs of 91 participants using the BHA filler versus the new MHA filler. Safety and efficacy were compared at 8 and 24 weeks. @*Results@#At 24 weeks after application, the average WSRS scores were 2.17±0.72 (BHA) and 2.07±0.71 (MHA) (P=0.034). The average GAIS scores, as measured by a treating investigator at 8 weeks and 24 weeks, were 0.94±0.76 (BHA) and 0.98±0.78 (MHA) at 8 weeks (P=0.181), and 0.44±0.64 (BHA) and 0.49±0.69 (MHA) at 24 weeks (P=0.103). The VAS pain score was 0 points at 30 minutes after filler application in both groups. @*Conclusions@#Both the BHA filler and the new MHA filler were safe and effective for improving facial wrinkles in NLFs, but the new MHA filler was more effective for the cosmetic improvement of wrinkle severity than the BHA filler.