Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical)

We conducted a thorough examination of the paper titled " Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical)" authored by Gentile et al. in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery with significant interest. The author shared their practical insights gained from employing "fat grafting" and "hyaluronic acid" methods for nasal remodeling in a randomized controlled trial. The research is notably captivating and executed with commendable proficiency. However, we do hold specific reservations concerning the methodologies employed. Precise understanding of the properties of the active substances utilized is fundamental for any medical intervention, and standardization stands as a pivotal element. It is essential to grasp the core characteristics of the administered HAs to potentially uncover links between these attributes, resulting outcomes, and possible complications. In the context of tissue volumization using fillers, rheology—an investigation into material flow and deformation under stress—holds particular importance. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of HA's rheological properties is imperative, especially when selecting an appropriate dermal filler for nasal applications. Among the critical properties of HA are viscosity, elasticity, and cohesiveness. While acknowledging the valuable contributions made by the authors, it is imperative that further analysis takes into account these influential factors during the course of their investigation.

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.