Search

Therapeutic options for acne scars include subcision and suction with microdermabrasion, but these treatment modalities have not been studied in conjunction. To compare effectiveness of subcision alone versus subcision with suction for the treatment of facial acne scars. Randomized, split-faced, evaluator-blinded control trial. Participants underwent one subcision treatment on both sides of the face followed by 10 sessions of suction to one side. Photographs at baseline, 1-month, and 4-months were assessed. Primary outcome measures were the validated Acne Scar Severity Scale (ASSS) (0 = no acne scarring, 4 = severe), Acne Scar Improvement Grading Scale (ASIGS) (-100 to 100%), and modified Quantitative Global Scarring Grades (QGSG) (point-based questionnaire instrument), as well as subject preference. Twenty-eight treatment areas and 154 treatments were analyzed. Dermatologist raters found no differences between subcision alone and subcision-suction at 1-month or 4-months. Mean subject-assessed percent improvement for subcision-suction was higher than that for subcision alone at 1-month (37% versus 24%, p = 0.04) but not at 4-months (p = 0.37). Subjects preferred combination therapy to monotherapy at 1-month (50% vs. 21%) and 4-months (43% vs. 21%). While blinded raters did not detect significant differences, subjects perceived combination treatment as working more quickly than monotherapy, and preferred combination treatment at all time points.Clinical trial registration NCT01696513 on Clinicaltrials.gov., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: There is a paucity of studies investigating laser resurfacing in Fitzpatrick skin phototypes (SPT) IV to VI., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of fractional nonablative laser resurfacing in the treatment of acne scarring in patients with SPT IV to VI., Methods and Materials: The authors conducted a randomized, investigator-blinded and rater-blinded, split-face comparative study of adults with SPT IV to VI and facial acne scars treated with 2 different density settings and the same fluence., Results: Quantitative global scarring grading system (QGSGS) scores were significantly improved from baseline at 16 and 24 weeks (p = .0277). Improvements in QGSGS scores after higher and lower density treatments were statistically similar (p = .96). The live-blinded dermatologist, the blinded dermatologist photoraters, and the patients rated scars as being significantly more improved by visual analog scale at weeks 16 and 24 compared with baseline (p < .001) for both treatment densities. Five of 7 and 3 of 7 patients in the higher and lower density group, respectively, experienced mild or moderate hyperpigmentation as an investigator observed site reaction., Conclusion: The nonablative 1550-nm fractional laser is safe and efficacious in treating acne scaring in Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI. Self-limited postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was a common occurrence, especially with higher treatment densities.

Importance: Neocollagenesis can be achieved using a dermal rolling needle device, thereby reducing the appearance of acne scars., Objective: To determine the efficacy of a needling device for treatment of acne scars., Design, Setting, and Participants: We performed a single-center, rater-blinded, balanced (1:1), split-face, placebo-controlled, parallel-group randomized clinical trial at an urban academic institution. The study took place from November 30, 2009, through July 27, 2010. Twenty healthy adults (age range, 20-65 years) with acne scars on both sides of the face were enrolled. Fifteen individuals completed the study, and no enrolled participants were withdrawn for adverse effects., Interventions: For each participant, one side of the face was randomized for needling. Three needling treatments were performed at 2-week intervals., Main Outcomes and Measures: Two blinded dermatologists separately rated participants' acne scars based on standard digital photographs obtained at baseline and at the 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits on the quantitative global scarring grading system., Results: Mean scar scores were significantly lower in the treatment group compared with baseline at 6 months (mean difference, 3.4; 95% CI, 0.2-6.5; P = .03) and nominally but not significantly lower compared with baseline at 3 months (mean difference, 2.4; 95% CI, -0.01 to 4.8; P = .052). In the control group, mean scar scores did not vary significantly from baseline at 3 months (mean difference, 1.0; 95% CI, -1.4 to 3.4; P = .96) and at 6 months (mean difference, 0.4; 95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5; P > .99). The needling procedure was not particularly painful, with a mean pain rating of 1.08 of 10. Participants perceived a 41% mean improvement in overall scar appearance on the treated side. No adverse events were reported., Conclusions and Relevance: After 3 needling treatments, there was improvement in the appearance of acne scars over time compared with the control group, with minimal pain reported., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00974870.