Liu (2024): The Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Injection in Tear Trough Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Xuanchen Liu, Yuan Gao, Jiguang Ma, Jie Li · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2024PMID: 37684413
Supports: Meta-analysis of 31 studies (2,556 participants) confirms HA tear trough injection achieves a 91% pooled satisfaction rate with low complication risk. Swelling (19.2%) and bruising (18.4%) were the most common adverse effects, while Tyndall effect occurred in only 0.9% of cases — supporting the safety profile of properly placed HA filler in the infraorbital region.
Limitations: Literature search limited to publications before September 2022. No subgroup analysis by specific HA product (e.g., Teosyal vs Restylane) or injection technique (needle vs cannula). Individual study quality varied across the 31 reports.
View on PubMed →Rao (2022): Tear Trough Filler Techniques Utilizing Hyaluronic Acid: A Systematic Review
Babar K. Rao, Lauren E. Berger, Catherine Reilly, Mahin Alamgir, Hassan Galadari · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2022PMID: 35259144
Supports: Systematic review of 42 articles in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery examining needle vs cannula HA injection techniques for tear troughs. Confirms both methods achieve comparable aesthetic results and patient satisfaction, supporting clinical choice based on anatomy rather than a single mandated approach.
Limitations: Literature search limited to publications before February 2020. Most studies were Level III evidence (retrospective, non-experimental). No statistically significant differences found between techniques, but inconsistencies across studies made standardisation infeasible. Cannot establish an evidence-based preference for either method.
View on PubMed →Diwan (2020): A Prospective Study on Safety, Complications and Satisfaction Analysis for Tear Trough Rejuvenation Using Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers
Zoya Diwan, Sanjay Trikha, Sepideh Etemad-Shahidi, Zunaid Alli, Christopher Rennie, Amanda Penny · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open, 2020PMID: 32440421
Supports: Prospective study of 24 patients (48 tear troughs) using cannula technique with HA filler placed supra-periosteally. 100% of patients noted overall improvement, 75% satisfied after a single session, with the remaining 25% achieving satisfaction after additional filler. No major complications recorded, supporting cannula-based tear trough treatment as safe with a maximum of 1ml between both eyes per sitting.
Limitations: Small sample size (24 patients). Short follow-up period (4 weeks). No control group or comparison with needle technique. Single-centre study with 4 practitioners. Does not specify long-term satisfaction or filler longevity beyond 4 weeks.
View on PubMed →Trinh (2022): Dermal Fillers for Tear Trough Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review
Lily N. Trinh, Sarah E. Grond, Amar Gupta · Facial Plastic Surgery, 2022PMID: 34192769
Supports: PRISMA-compliant systematic review of 23 studies examining dermal fillers for tear trough rejuvenation. Confirms high patient satisfaction with results lasting 8–12 months. Optimal technique involves pre-periosteal placement deep to orbicularis oculi, anterior to the inferior orbital rim. Side effects were generally mild (bruising, oedema, blue-grey dyschromia, contour irregularities).
Limitations: Significant variation in treatment parameters across the 23 included studies. Restylane was the most commonly used filler, limiting direct applicability to other HA products like Teosyal Redensity II. No standardised outcome measures across studies. Does not include comparative data between filler types.
View on PubMed →*PRP London Clinic provides these references for educational purposes. Our Clinical Board regularly reviews emerging peer-reviewed literature to ensure our protocols align with the latest advancements in regenerative medicine.