Clinical effect of botulinum toxin type A combined with autologous fat grafting in patients with nasolabial fold depression

Table 1 Comparison of the baseline data of the patients

Group	Sample size (n)	Age (years)	BMI (kg/m2)	Number of years of education (years)
Observation group	30	50.96 ± 3.58	23.14 ± 2.24	9.55 ± 1.20
Control group	30	50.91 ± 3.63	23.08 ± 2.28	9.60 ± 1.24
t		0.053	0.103	0.159
P value		> 0.05	> 0.05	> 0.05

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Wrinkle severity rating scale scores

Scoring	Degree	Description
5	Extremely heavy	The wrinkles are extremely deep and long, stretching inch folded 2-4 mm
4	Heavy weight	The folds are deep, long, and obvious, and the folds stretch 2 mm in the middle
3	Moderate	The folds are deep and clear, but the folds disappear when they are stretched
2	Mild	There are shallow wrinkles, slight dents, and fine folds
1	None	There are no visible folds, showing the presence of only continuous skin lines

WSRS: Wrinkle severity rating scale.

Table 3 Overall esthetic improvement scale

	Grading	Description
1	Remarkable improvement	Good improvement effect
2	Great improvement	The appearance is obviously improved, but it is not the best
3	Limited improvement	The appearance is obviously improved compared with the initial state, but supplementary treatment is recommended
4	No improvement	Basically no change
5	Worsen	The appearance is even worse than that before the operation

Table 4 Comparison of wrinkle severity rating scale scores (mean ± SD, points)

Group	n	Before operation	1 month after operation	3 months after operation	6 months after operation
Observation group	30	3.52 ± 0.51	1.76 ± 0.52a	1.92 ± 0.49a	2.28 ± 0.46a,b,c
Control group	30	3.64 ± 0.49	2.08 ± 0.49a	2.36 ± 0.29a,b	2.68 ± 0.48a,b,c
t		0.929	2.453	4.233	3.295
P value		> 0.05	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01

^aP < 0.05 compared with before the operation in the same group.

^bP < 0.05 compared with 1 month after the operation in the same group.

^cP < 0.05 compared with 3 months after the operation in the same group.

Table 5 Comparison of skin index scores (mean ± SD, points)

Group	n	Color and luster	Texture	Pore	Wrinkles	Fat
Observation group	30	5.60 ± 1.77	6.03 ± 1.86	4.87 ± 1.40	6.13 ± 1.80	6.07 ± 1.76
Control group	30	4.70 ± 1.36	5.10 ± 1.39	2.10 ± 1.34	5.03 ± 1.79	3.13 ± 1.65
t		2.201	2.192	7.773	2.382	6.654
P value		< 0.05	< 0.05	< 0.05	< 0.05	< 0.05

Table 6 Comparison of the compactness of facial contours (n, %)

Group	n	Obvious effect	Effective	Invalid	Effectiveness rate
Observation group	30	15 (50.00)	10 (33.33)	5 (16.67)	25 (83.33)
Control group	30	6 (20.00)	12 (40.00)	12 (40.00)	18 (60.00)
χ2					4.022
P value					< 0.05

Table 7 Comparison of global aesthetic improvement scale scores (mean ± SD, points)

Group	n	Before operation	1 month after operation	3 months after operation	6 months after operation
Observation group	30	4.52 ± 0.41	3.76 ± 0.12a	3.02 ± 0.05a,b	1.28 ± 0.06a,b,c
Control group	30	4.44 ± 0.39	4.08 ± 0.09a	3.96 ± 0.11a,b	2.67 ± 0.08a,b,c
t		0.774	11.685	42.610	76.133
P value		> 0.05	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01

^aP < 0.05 compared with before the operation in the same group.

^bP < 0.05 compared with 1 month after the operation in the same group.

^cP < 0.05 compared with 3 months after the operation in the same group.

Table 8 Comparison of adverse reactions 3 months after the operation (n, %)

Group	n	Facial stiffness	Facial asymmetry	Surgical area bruising	Facial unneveness
Observation group	30	10 (33.33)	1 (3.33)	7 (23.33)	6 (20.00)
Control group	30	12 (40.00)	2 (6.66)	8 (26.67)	8 (26.67)
χ2		0.287	0.351	0.889	0.373
P value		> 0.05	> 0.05	> 0.05	> 0.05