A comparative split-face study of invasive microneedle radiofrequency versus plasma fractional radiofrequency in the treatment of atrophic acne scars
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4030.2018.02.009
- VernacularTitle:侵入性微针射频与等离子点阵射频治疗痤疮凹陷性瘢痕的自身对照研究
- Author:
Ben WANG
1
;
Yuxuan DENG
;
Ji LI
;
Wei SHI
;
Yan TANG
;
Dan JIAN
Author Information
1. 中南大学湘雅医院皮肤科
- Keywords:
Acne vulgaris;
Cicatrix;
Laser therapy;
Treatment outcome;
Invasive microneedle radiofrequency;
Plasma fractional radiofrequency
- From:
Chinese Journal of Dermatology
2018;51(2):126-130
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of invasive microneedle radiofrequency versus plasma fractional radiofrequency in the treatment of atrophic facial acne scars.Methods A total of 30 patients with atrophic acne scars were enrolled from the Department of Dermatology of Xiangya Hospital affiliated to Central South University between January 2017 and March 2017.By a random number table,every patient randomly received the treatment with invasive microneedle radiofrequency on one half of the face and plasma fractional radiofrequency on the other facial side once every 8-12 weeks for 3 sessions.Before and after each treatment,facial photos were taken,acne scars were scored by the ECCA grading scale (échelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné),and improvement rates of these lesions were evaluated subjectively by doctors.Adverse reactions were recorded after treatment,and the degree of pain and satisfaction was evaluated by the patients themselves.The Germany CK physiological index detector was used to detect the skin moisture content,transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and sebum content.Results All of the 30 patients completed 3 sessions of treatment and follow-up.After the 3 sessions of treatment,the average score on invasive microneedle radiofrequency-treated sides was 3.00 ± 0.91,and 22 patients achieved more than 50％ improvement.However,the average score on plasma fractional radiofrequency-treated sides was 3.57 ± 0.57,and 29 patients achieved more than 50％ improvement.The overall therapeutic effect of plasma fractional radiofrequency was significantly superior tothat of invasive microneedle radiofrequency (t =2.894,P =0.005).For V-shaped and U-shaped scars,there was no significant difference in the overall improvement rate between the invasive microneedle radiofrequency-treated side and plasma fractional radiofrequency-treated side (both P ＞ 0.05).For Mshaped rolling scars,the overall improvement rate was significantly lower on the invasive microneedle radiofrequency-treated side (36.5％ ± 2.1％) than on the plasma fractional radiofrequency-treated side (48.7％ ± 3.4％,P ＜ 0.01).However,the pain score was significantly lower on the invasive microneedle radiofrequency-treated side (5.54 ± 0.57) than on the plasma fractional radiofrequency-treated side (8.07 ± 0.79,P ＜ 0.01).After 3 sessions of treatment,there were no significant differences in the degree of patient satisfaction (x2 =0.10,P ＞ 0.05),skin moisture content (P ＞ 0.05),TEWL (P ＞ 0.05) or sebum content (P ＞ 0.05) between the 2 sides.Adverse reactions such as erythema,exudation and hemorrhage occurred on both of the 2 sides.Conclusions For small V-shaped and U-shaped scars,the plasma fractional radiofrequency and invasive microneedle radiofrequency both can be applied in clinic.For large M-shaped rolling scars,the plasma fractional radiofrequency can be preferentially selected.
