Comparative Evaluation of the Biodegradability and Biocompatibility of Agarose Gel and Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

IF 2.8 3区医学 Q2 SURGERY

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI:10.1007/s00266-025-05239-3

Fangzhou Xie, Jiaqi Qin, Jian Sun, Qingfeng Li, Yun Xie

{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of the Biodegradability and Biocompatibility of Agarose Gel and Hyaluronic Acid Filler.","authors":"Fangzhou Xie, Jiaqi Qin, Jian Sun, Qingfeng Li, Yun Xie","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-05239-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The clinical success of soft tissue fillers hinges on their biodegradability and biocompatibility. While agarose gel, a clinically available filler, shows versatility across injection sites, its degradation behavior and tissue effects remain poorly understood.Objective: This study aimed to compare the biodegradability and biocompatibility of agarose gel and hyaluronic acid fillers using a rat model.Method: Agarose gel and hyaluronic acid were subcutaneously injected into Sprague-Dawley rats' dorsal regions. MRI scans at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months assessed filler volume and distribution. SEM examined morphology, in vitro tests measured water absorption, and histology at 12 months included HE staining and immunohistochemistry for collagen and macrophage markers.Result: Hyaluronic acid exhibited higher water absorption than agarose gel (p < 0.05). MRI revealed greater initial volume retention for hyaluronic acid (0.762 ml vs. 0.283 ml, p = 0.025), while agarose gel demonstrated a slower biodegradation rate during the first three months (86.24% vs. 61.88%, p = 0.004) and greater early-phase dispersion (109.89% vs. 65.24%, p = 0.020). At 12 months, no significant difference in final volume retention was observed. Both fillers showed good biocompatibility, with no signs of fibrosis or inflammation after one year.Conclusion: These findings from an animal study suggest agarose gel's potential as a safe and effective alternative for soft tissue augmentation.No level assigned: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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.","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-05239-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The clinical success of soft tissue fillers hinges on their biodegradability and biocompatibility. While agarose gel, a clinically available filler, shows versatility across injection sites, its degradation behavior and tissue effects remain poorly understood.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the biodegradability and biocompatibility of agarose gel and hyaluronic acid fillers using a rat model.

Method: Agarose gel and hyaluronic acid were subcutaneously injected into Sprague-Dawley rats' dorsal regions. MRI scans at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months assessed filler volume and distribution. SEM examined morphology, in vitro tests measured water absorption, and histology at 12 months included HE staining and immunohistochemistry for collagen and macrophage markers.

Result: Hyaluronic acid exhibited higher water absorption than agarose gel (p < 0.05). MRI revealed greater initial volume retention for hyaluronic acid (0.762 ml vs. 0.283 ml, p = 0.025), while agarose gel demonstrated a slower biodegradation rate during the first three months (86.24% vs. 61.88%, p = 0.004) and greater early-phase dispersion (109.89% vs. 65.24%, p = 0.020). At 12 months, no significant difference in final volume retention was observed. Both fillers showed good biocompatibility, with no signs of fibrosis or inflammation after one year.

Conclusion: These findings from an animal study suggest agarose gel's potential as a safe and effective alternative for soft tissue augmentation.

No level assigned: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

琼脂糖凝胶和透明质酸填料生物降解性和生物相容性的比较评价。

背景：软组织填充物的生物可降解性和生物相容性是其临床成功的关键。虽然琼脂糖凝胶是一种临床可用的填充剂，在注射部位表现出多功能性，但其降解行为和组织效应仍然知之甚少。目的：通过大鼠模型比较琼脂糖凝胶和透明质酸填充剂的生物降解性和生物相容性。方法：将琼脂糖凝胶和透明质酸皮下注射于sd大鼠背部。MRI扫描在1、3、6、9和12个月评估填充物的体积和分布。扫描电镜检查了形态学，体外测试测量了吸水率，12个月时的组织学包括HE染色和胶原和巨噬细胞标记物的免疫组织化学。结果：透明质酸表现出比琼脂糖凝胶更高的吸水率(p结论：这些来自动物研究的发现表明琼脂糖凝胶作为一种安全有效的软组织增强替代品的潜力。未指定水平：本刊要求作者为每份投稿指定证据水平，以适用循证医学排名。这不包括评论文章、书评和涉及基础科学、动物研究、尸体研究和实验研究的手稿。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者说明www.springer.com/00266。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

25.00%

发文量

479

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.