Comparison of the efficacy of water jet-assisted dermabrasion versus electric dermabrasion in combination with suction blister epidermal grafting in the treatment of vitiligo
- VernacularTitle:水刀磨削或电动磨削联合负压吸疱自体表皮移植术治疗白癜风的疗效比较
- Author:
Hui CHEN
1
;
Bing LI
;
Chunying LI
;
Weinan GUO
Author Information
- Keywords: Vitiligo; Transplantation, autologous; Skin transplantation; Water jet-assisted dermabrasion; Electric dermabrasion; Suction blister; Efficacy comparison
- From: Chinese Journal of Dermatology 2024;57(1):43-45
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of water jet-assisted dermabrasion versus electric dermabrasion in combination with suction blister epidermal grafting in the treatment of vitiligo.Methods:A total of 60 vitiligo patients were enrolled from the Department of Dermatology, Xijing Hospital from March 2020 to March 2022. Thirty patients firstly received water jet-assisted dermabrasion, 30 firstly received electric dermabrasion, and then all were treated with suction blister epidermal grafting. Follow-up visits were conducted once a month, and the repigmentation of skin lesions and efficacy were evaluated and compared between the two groups 6 months after surgery.Results:There were 30 patients with 312 skin lesions in the water jet-assisted dermabrasion group, including 13 males and 17 females, with the ages and disease duration being 24.41 ± 3.12 years and 5.13 ± 2.34 years respectively; there were 30 patients with 301 skin lesions in the electric dermabrasion group, including 11 males and 19 females, with the ages and disease duration being 22.73 ± 5.11 years and 4.88 ± 2.21 years respectively. No significant differences were observed in the age, gender, disease duration, and dermabrasion sites between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Six months after the operation, 187 (59.94%) skin lesions were healed, 103 (33.01%) were markedly improved, and 22 (7.05%) were improved in the water jet-assisted dermabrasion group; in the electric dermabrasion group, 166 (55.15%) lesions were healed, 108 (35.88%) were markedly improved, and 27 (8.97%) were improved; there was no significant difference in the total response rate between the water jet-assisted dermabrasion group (92.95%) and the electric dermabrasion group (91.03%; χ2 = 0.27, P = 0.602). The water jet-assisted dermabrasion group showed significantly higher degree of repigmentation (90.47% ± 2.53%), matching degree of skin color (3.53 ± 0.21 points), and patient satisfaction scores (3.32 ± 0.27 points) compared with the electric dermabrasion group (82.40% ± 5.33%, 2.71 ± 0.32 points, 2.68 ± 0.41 points, t = 5.30, 8.28, 5.09, respectively, all P < 0.05). No adverse reactions/events were seen in either group. Conclusions:The water jet-assisted dermabrasion combined with suction blister epidermal grafting and electric dermabrasion combined with suction blister epidermal grafting showed similar efficacy in the treatment of vitiligo, with good safety profiles. However, the degree of repigmentation, matching degree of skin color, and patient satisfaction rates were all higher in the patients receiving water jet-assisted dermabrasion than those receiving electric dermabrasion.
