An Exploratory Split-Area Pilot Case Series of Two Hyaluronic Acid Skinboosters across Facial and Non-Facial Regions

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) skinboosters are widely used to enhance skin hydration, elasticity, and texture. Cost has been identified as a common barrier to accessing aesthetic treatments, underscoring the importance of comparative data across available HA formulations. Hyamira 40 Booster is a high-concentration HA product increasingly used in practice; however, published data remain limited. Objectives: This paper aims to evaluate patient-reported outcomes and tolerability of Hyamira 40 Booster and an established HA skinbooster across the face, neck, décolleté, and hands. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, split-area exploratory pilot evaluation, adult participants received Hyamira 40 Booster on one side of each treated region and the comparator HA skinbooster on the contralateral side. All injections were performed in the superficial subdermal plane using a 25 G/60 mm cannula. Three sessions were administered at baseline, on Day 15, and on Day 30, with follow-up on Day 45. Outcomes were assessed using patient-reported Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores and a 16-item satisfaction questionnaire. Paired t-tests were used for within-side comparisons; between-product comparisons were descriptive given the exploratory sample size. The study included five participants and was not powered for formal comparative analysis. Results: Both products were associated with progressive GAIS improvements in radiance, elasticity, hydration, smoothness, and overall skin quality across all anatomical regions. Mean scores for the Hyamira-treated and comparator-treated sides were similar at all time points, with no consistent differences observed between sides, while several within-side improvements reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). Satisfaction questionnaire responses were highly similar for both sides, and participants most often selected “Equal” when asked to compare comfort, tolerability, or perceived aesthetic improvement. Conclusions: Both treatments were associated with improvements in multiple patient-reported skin-quality parameters across all evaluated regions, with no consistent differences observed between sides in this exploratory sample. Cost differences may represent a practical consideration in clinical use, although no economic analysis was performed. These findings should be interpreted in light of the small sample size, absence of objective outcome measures, and short follow-up duration. Further studies incorporating larger populations, objective assessments, and longer follow-up