Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Minimally invasive hyaluronan (HA) tissue fillers are routinely employed to provide tissue projection and correct age-related skin depressions. HA fillers can advantageously be degraded by hyaluronidase (HAase) administration in case of adverse events. However, clear guidelines regarding the optimal dosage and mode of administration of HAase are missing, leaving a scientific gap for practitioners in their daily practice. In this study, we implemented a novel rheological procedure to rationally evaluate soft tissue filler degradability and optimize their degradation kinetics. TEOSYAL RHA® filler degradation kinetics in contact with HAase was monitored in real-time by rheological time sweeps. Gels were shown to degrade as a function of enzymatic activity, HA concentration, and BDDE content, with a concomitant loss of their viscoelastic properties. We further demonstrated that repeated administration of small HAase doses improved HA degradation kinetics over large single doses. Mathematical analyses were developed to evaluate the degradation potential of an enzyme. Finally, we tuned the optimal time between injections and number of enzymatic units, maximizing degradation kinetics. In this study, we have established a scientific rationale for the degradation of HA fillers by multidose HAase administration that could serve as a basis for future clinical management of adverse events.

Background: Hyaluronic acid-based filler injections are now well-established aesthetic procedures for the correction of skin tissue defects and volume loss. Filler injections are becoming increasingly popular, with a growing number of injections performed each year. Although classified as a minimally invasive procedure, the introduction of a needle or a canula may remain painful for the patient. A major improvement was achieved with the incorporation of local anesthetics into the formulation for pain relief. Methods: In this study, two well-known anesthetics, lidocaine and mepivacaine, were systematically compared to assess their influence on filler mechanical and biological features. The impact of each anesthetic was monitored in terms of gel rheological properties, stability, durability, and degradation. The release profiles of each anesthetic were also recorded. Finally, the pharmacokinetics of each anesthetic in rats were assessed. Results: For all the rheological and biological experiments performed, lidocaine and mepivacaine influences were comparable. The addition of either anesthetic into a soft-tissue filler showed no significant modifications of the stability, durability, and degradability of the gel, with similar release profiles and pharmacokinetics at an equivalent concentration. Conclusions: Substituting lidocaine with mepivacaine does not impact the properties of the gels, and thus both can be equally incorporated as anesthetics in soft-tissue fillers.