Work

Injector Experience and Satisfaction with a Redesigned Syringe for Cohesive Polydensified Matrix Gels: A Non-Comparative Questionnaire-Based Study

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: Background: Clinician-reported evaluations of syringe injectability and handling during hyaluronic acid (HA) filler administration remain limited. Objective: To characterize experienced injectors' perceptions of the usability, handling, and safety-related features of a redesigned (Gen2) syringe for cohesive polydensified matrix (CPM) HA gels. Methods: In this retrospective, non-comparative analysis of a manufacturer-associated questionnaire evaluation, 17 experienced Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), including nine manuscript authors, evaluated the Gen2 syringe following clinical use (n=12) or simulated use (n=5). The Gen2 syringe and CPM products were provided by the manufacturer. Participants completed a study-specific questionnaire reviewed for clarity, clinical relevance, and face validity and provided qualitative feedback regarding syringe ergonomics, handling, extrusion characteristics, injection control, and perceived safety-related features. No comparator syringe was evaluated. Questionnaire responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, with exact 95% confidence intervals calculated for selected proportions. Results: Injectors generally rated the evaluated syringe attributes favorably. The integrated Luer-lock was selected as a valuable design feature by 13/17 respondents (76.5%), followed by perceived lower extrusion force (11/17, 64.7%) and the concave thumb grip (9/17, 52.9%). Responses were predominantly favorable regarding perceived injection-volume accuracy and reduction in needle-detachment risk. Five of 17 respondents (29.4%) reported usability considerations, including scale orientation, syringe length, and resistance during rubber-bung removal. Conclusion: The redesigned syringe was rated favorably by this small, selected group of experienced injectors familiar with the legacy platform. These exploratory, perception-based findings should be interpreted in the context of the non-comparative design, sponsor-associated participant selection and use of a study-specific questionnaire developed for this evaluation. Comparative studies incorporating objective performance measures are warranted.

Source: Clinical Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology

DOI: 10.2147/ccid.s624583