Platelet-rich plasma versus CROSS technique with 100% trichloroacetic acid versus combined skin needling and platelet rich plasma in the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a comparative study

Evidence-based management of cutaneous scarring in dermatology part 2: atrophic acne scarring

Atrophic acne scars are the most common type of acne scars and are classified into three main types: icepick, boxcar, and rolling scars. Various procedures and techniques for atrophic acne scarring are discussed in detail, with stronger evidence-based support for lasers (non-fractional, fractional, ablative, and non-ablative), platelet-rich plasma as adjunctive treatment, chemical peels (glycolic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and Jessner's solution), dermal fillers such as hyaluronic acid, and microneedling, and lesser quality evidence for microdermabrasion, subcision, and lipoaspirate grafting. Further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols, assess the efficacy of monotherapies, and establish standardized guidelines for clinicians. This paper will provide a comprehensive review of the evidence-based management of atrophic acne scars, including currently commonly utilized therapies as well as more innovative treatment options.

Microneedling combined with botulinum toxin-A versus microneedling combined with platelet-rich plasma in treatment of atrophic acne scars: a comparative split face study

BACKGROUND

Atrophic post-acne scarring constitutes a troublesome cosmetic concern for both patients and dermatologists. Old and new therapies as well as combinations are being introduced to achieve a satisfactory response. Microneedling has been used either alone or under different combinations for its treatment. The aim was to compare its combination with topical platelet-rich plasma versus its combination with topical Botulinum Toxin-A.

METHODS

30 subjects with different types and grades of atrophic post-acne scars completed the study. Right side of the face was treated with microneedling and platelet-rich plasma while the left side was treated microneedling and Botox. Response was assessed using two different scales. Patient satisfaction and pain were also assessed.

RESULTS

Regarding response to therapy and according to the quartile grading scale, there was no statistically significant difference between the two sides where (23.4% & 13.3%) of the right and left sides, respectively, had an excellent response. Regarding the difference in the qualitative global scarring grading system before and after treatment, there was a highly statistically significant improvement on both sides with higher improvement on the right side than left side but in a non-statistically significant way.

CONCLUSIONS

Both combinations present efficacious options for treating acne scars with comparable efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered and approved prospectively by the ethical review board of the faculty of medicine, Zagazig University.

Methods for the Improvement of Acne Scars Used in Dermatology and Cosmetology: A Review

Acne vulgaris is a chronic skin disease that, depending on its course, is characterized by the occurrence of various skin eruptions such as open and closed comedones, pustules, papules, and cysts. Incorrectly selected treatment or the presence of severe acne vulgaris can lead to the formation of atrophic scars. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on acne scars and methods for their improvement. There are three types of atrophic scars: icepick, rolling, and boxcar. They are of different depths and widths and have different cross-sections. Scars can combine to form clusters. If acne scars are located on the face, they can reduce the patient’s quality of life, leading to isolation and depression. There are multiple effective modalities to treat acne scars. Ablative lasers, radiofrequency, micro-needling, and pilings with trichloroacetic acid have very good treatment results. Contemporary dermatology and cosmetology use treatments that cause minimal side effects, so the patient can return to daily functioning shortly after treatment. Proper dermatological treatment and skincare, as well as the rapid implementation of cosmetological treatments, will certainly achieve satisfactory results in reducing atrophic scars.

Platelet-Rich Plasma in Aesthetics

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as a treatment modality for skin rejuvenation since the last decade. There has been a lot of ambiguity regarding the ideal protocol to be followed and the specific indications where its use should be promoted. The use of PRP as monotherapy for skin rejuvenation, acne scars, periorbital rejuvenation, lipofilling and in combination with fractional CO₂ and other resurfacing modalities is increasing rapidly. In this article, we have reviewed the current scientific evidence available and the IADVL national task force for PRP has come up with standard recommendations for use of PRP in esthetics along with the grade of evidence and strength of recommendation for each indication. The aim of this review is to provide a standard protocol for use of PRP in esthetics, for clinicians and academicians, leading to excellent results with this promising treatment modality.

Platelet-Rich Plasma: The Journey so Far !

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood product, obtained after blood centrifugation. PRP is rich in growth factors which promote tissue-healing, alter angiogenesis, and possess versatile immunomodulatory effects, in the relative absence of any significant demonstrable adverse effects. Consequently, PRP has found application in multiple specialities in recent years, including dermatology. A literature search was performed on PubMed, Medline database, and Google Scholar, using keywords like platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-concentrated plasma, platelet-rich growth factors, autologous platelet concentrate. Relevant studies were selected, and data was analyzed following extraction. Studies show that PRP has not only been used as an adjunctive modality but has been employed as a stand-alone therapy as well. Multiple authors have reported PRP to be efficacious in disparate dermatological conditions, like alopecia, skin rejuvenation, healing of refractory cutaneous ulcers, and even acne scar management. The strongest evidence so far has been demonstrated in androgenetic alopecia and facial skin rejuvenation. However, routine use in dermatological conditions is hampered by the relative paucity of high-quality evidence and large randomized studies. Furthermore, PRP composition and preparation methods are not yet standardized and even the treatment regimens proposed too vary widely. The present review provides a bird's eye view of the evidence available so far regarding the use of PRP in dermatology. The review focusses more on recent prospective studies, including randomized trials and tries to summarize the evidence in a brief, but comprehensive manner.

A meta-analysis of fractional CO2 laser combined with PRP in the treatment of acne scar

This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser systems (CO₂ AFL) combined with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of acne scars through the retrieval and collection of related literature to further guide the treatment of acne scars. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials on CO₂ AFL combined with PRP in the treatment of acne scars were included, and Revman5.3 systematic review software was used in the meta-analysis. Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The data analysis results showed that the CO₂ AFL combined with PRP treatment group showed significantly better results than the pure CO₂ AFL control group in terms of clinical improvement score, clinical improvement rate, patient satisfaction, and crusting period. The results of this meta-analysis showed that CO₂ AFL combined with PRP in the treatment of acne scars is more effective and safer than CO₂ AFL alone.

A Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy Fractional CO2Laser, Microneedling and Platelet Rich Plasma in Post-Acne Scarring

Background:

Acne scarring commonly seen in young adults causes marked psychological distress. Commonly used procedural treatments for post-acne scarring have limited efficacy. This prospective, randomized study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects offractional CO2 laser, microneedling, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in post-acne scarring.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty clinically diagnosed cases of post-acne scarring of both sexes were enrolled and divided into three groups of 20 patients each. The severity of scarring was graded as per the qualitative and quantitative grading system proposed by Goodman and Baron. Group A, B, and C patients were treated with fractional CO2 laser, microneedling, and PRP,respectively, at monthly intervals for foursessions. Improve men tin quantitative and qualitative grades of scars and adverse effects were noted at each session and 1 month after the final sitting. Statistical analysis was done using Student 't' test for quantitative values and Chi square test for qualitative values.

Results:

At the end of foursessions, based on mean percentage of improvement in quantitative grade, the efficacy of fractional CO2 laser is significantly greater than that of PRP (P = 0.00), while CO2 laser and microneedling did not show significant difference (P = 0.106). Based on qualitative scores, fractional CO2 laser group showed statistically higher therapeutic efficacy compared to microneedling and PRP (P = 0.00).No significant adverse effects were encountered in any groups.

Conclusion:

Fractional CO₂ laser resurfacing is more efficacious than microneedling and PRP. Unsatisfactory results were obtained with PRP as monotherapy in post-acne scarring.

Fractional Erbium-YAG Laser and Platelet-Rich Plasma as Single or Combined Treatment for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Acne scarring is a common undesirable complication of acne vulgaris. Fractional erbium-yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) 2940 nm laser and platelet-rich plasma have been used in treating acne scars with variable outcomes. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of fractional erbium-YAG 2940 nm laser and platelet-rich plasma as a single line of treatment in comparison with combined treatment in atrophic postacne scars.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients were included in this trial and randomized into three equal groups (25 each). Group A was subjected to six sessions of erbium-YAG laser for 6 months, group B was treated with 12 sessions of platelet-rich plasma over the same period, and group C was subjected to six sessions of erbium-YAG laser plus 12 sessions of platelet-rich plasma over the same period. Each subject was evaluated by acne scar grading, photography, and subjective evaluation.

RESULTS

Both treatment modalities showed improvement of acne scars, but the improvement with combined treatment was better than that with erbium-YAG laser or platelet-rich plasma alone regarding scar grade improvement (P = 0.007 and 0.001), clinical improvement (P = 0.001 and 0.001), and patient satisfaction (P = 0.005 and 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of platelet-rich plasma plus erbium-YAG laser is superior to either treatment alone for acne scars, with trivial side effects for all treatment modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT03933033.

The Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Field of Hair Restoration and Facial Aesthetics—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

As a promising alternative to traditional treatment, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used to encourage hair growth through the release of growth factors and cytokines. In addition to hair restoration, PRP’s multifactorial capabilities can also be used to treat aging skin, facial scarring, and acne. The purpose of this review is to critically examine the success of PRP in the field of dermatology, with specific attention to the role of PRP in hair restoration. Where possible, meta-analyses were used to evaluate the efficacy of PRP. In androgenetic alopecia (AGA) patients, 3 monthly PRP injections (1 session administered every month for 3 months) exhibited greater efficacy over placebo as measured by change in total hair density (hair/cm2) over the treatment period (mean difference: 25.61, 95% CI: 4.45 to 46.77; P = .02). The studies included in the meta-analysis used a half-head design, which may have influenced the results because of the effects PRP can induce. Controlled studies suggest that 2 to 4 sessions of PRP combined with traditional therapies and procedures can help minimize acne scarring and facial burns, improve aesthetic results, and decrease recovery time. However, data for these indications are lacking and are less robust in design. In conclusion, to achieve an improvement in hair restoration in patients with mild AGA, 3 initial monthly PRP injections should be given. Only upon completion of rigorous, randomized, controlled studies can standardized and effective PRP protocols for treating dermatology conditions such as acne scarring, facial burns, and aging skin be determined.

The evidence behind the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in scar management: a literature review

Introduction

Autologous platelet-based concentrates represent increasingly popular adjuncts to a variety of medical, surgical and aesthetic interventions. Their beneficial potential rests on the ability to deliver a high concentration of growth factors to the target tissues. There are currently no reports in the literature appraising the evidence behind the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in scar management.

Methods

A detailed English literature review was conducted using PubMed Medline, Embase and Web of Science; the manuscripts were appraised and classified according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of evidence. The results are presented in descending order of evidence separately for atrophic, keloid, surgical and traumatic scars.

Discussion

On the basis of level 1 evidence currently available, it appears that PRP can improve the quality of atrophic acne scars treated with ablative fractional CO2 laser and decrease the duration of laser-related side effects including oedema and erythema. Regarding surgical scars, the current data suggest that PRP may improve wound healing and early scar quality; furthermore, incorporation of PRP in fat-grafting procedures undertaken in conjunction with non-ablative, fractional laser can contribute to better wound healing as well as a significant improvement in texture, colour and contour in traumatic scar resurfacing. There are no high level studies at present to support the incorporation of autologous platelet-based concentrates in the management of keloid scars.

Conclusion

PRP is a promising adjunct in scar management practice. Further research with long-term follow-up is warranted to delineate the value of this modality in different subtypes of scars.

A Comparative Study of Combined Dermaroller and Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Dermaroller Alone in Acne Scars and Assessment of Quality of Life Before and After Treatment

Background:

Scarring due to acne is a frequently encountered problem in dermatological outpatient department. Microneedling has been a well-accepted modality for the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a newer option to investigate.

Aims:

The aims of this study were (1) to compare the efficacy of combined dermaroller and PRP therapy with dermaroller alone in facial acne scars and (2) to assess the psychosocial impact due to acne scars and its treatment.

Methods:

A total of 55 patients were included in the study and randomly divided into two groups, Group A: 28 and Group B: 27. Proper counseling was done, and detailed clinical findings were recorded. Patients in Group A were treated with dermaroller alone while Group B patients underwent treatment with a combination of dermaroller and intradermal PRP injections. A total of three sitting were done at monthly interval. Final response was assessed at 1 month after the last sitting. Criteria of evaluation included Goodman and Baron's quantitative scale, visual analog score, and dermatology life quality index scores. Side effects were noted. Results were analyzed using Chi-square test and t-test.

Results:

Significant percentage improvement was noted in both the groups. However, Group B treated with both modalities had better results when compared with that in the Group A.

Conclusion:

A combination approach using dermaroller and PRP was a safe and better option than using dermaroller alone in atrophic acne scars for clinical improvement as well as for improvement in dermatology life quality index score.

The evidence behind the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in scar management: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

Autologous platelet-based concentrates represent increasingly popular adjuncts to a variety of medical, surgical and aesthetic interventions. Their beneficial potential rests on the ability to deliver a high concentration of growth factors to the target tissues. There are currently no reports in the literature appraising the evidence behind the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in scar management.

METHODS

A detailed English literature review was conducted using PubMed Medline, Embase and Web of Science; the manuscripts were appraised and classified according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of evidence. The results are presented in descending order of evidence separately for atrophic, keloid, surgical and traumatic scars.

DISCUSSION

On the basis of level 1 evidence currently available, it appears that PRP can improve the quality of atrophic acne scars treated with ablative fractional CO2 laser and decrease the duration of laser-related side effects including oedema and erythema. Regarding surgical scars, the current data suggest that PRP may improve wound healing and early scar quality; furthermore, incorporation of PRP in fat-grafting procedures undertaken in conjunction with non-ablative, fractional laser can contribute to better wound healing as well as a significant improvement in texture, colour and contour in traumatic scar resurfacing. There are no high level studies at present to support the incorporation of autologous platelet-based concentrates in the management of keloid scars.

CONCLUSION

PRP is a promising adjunct in scar management practice. Further research with long-term follow-up is warranted to delineate the value of this modality in different subtypes of scars.

A systematic review of treatments for acne scarring. Part 1: Non-energy-based techniques

Acne is a common condition that can result in permanent scarring. We have performed a comprehensive literature search of the last 10 years in order to determine the efficacy and side effects of commonly used treatments against post-acne scarring. A total of 36 relevant articles were identified on the following interventions: subcision (10), dermabrasion (one), microneedling (eight), dermal fillers (five), and chemical peeling (12). Post acne scarring is a common and challenging condition with no easy and definitive solution. The above interventions have been used with varying degrees of efficacy, each having both pros and cons. All have been deemed to be safe with few and transient adverse reactions. However, further trials with larger number of patients are necessary in order to reach more concrete conclusions regarding their efficacy.

Fractional CO2 Laser vs Fractional CO2 with Topical Platelet-rich Plasma in the Treatment of Acne Scars: A Split-face Comparison Trial

Background:

It is a challenge to treat acne scars and a multimodal combination approach is necessary. While fractional CO₂ lasers (FCLs) are an established treatment option, the role of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of acne scars is not established though it is being used extensively in other fields of medicine owing to its healing properties. We combined the two methods to assess the proposed synergistic action on acne scars.

Aims and Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of FCL alone vs FCL combined with PRP on the quality of acne scars.

Materials and Methods:

This is a left–right split-face comparison study with 30 patients with moderate-to-severe acne scars. The patients underwent three sessions of FCL and FCL + topical PRP on right and left sides of the face, respectively, at monthly intervals.

Results:

There was significant improvement on both sides of the face (right side, P = 0.001; left side, P = 0.0001), but the difference between the right and the left sides of the face was not statistically significant (P = 0.2891). The symptoms of redness, edema, and pain on the treated areas with laser were significantly lesser on the FCL + PRP (left) side as compared to the FCL-only (right) side.

Conclusion:

Both methods were effective in management of acne scars. Addition of PRP does not improve the scar quality; however, the downtime and inflammation associated with laser treatment gets significantly reduced on the PRP-treated side.

Use of Platelet-rich Plasma for Vulvovaginal Autoimmune Conditions Like Lichen Sclerosus

Background:

Lichen sclerosus (LS) is an inflammatory dermatosis with autoimmune pathogenesis. Although relatively common, its true incidence is unknown and likely underestimated. LS is usually anogenital, but in around 10% of patients, it can present as extragenital lesions. Continuous administration of topical corticosteroids is the mainstay of medical treatment. Other treatments are available but are only occasionally prescribed along with or instead of topical steroids. Injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into affected areas has been reported to result in the regeneration of normal skin. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety, symptom resolution, and objective improvement in patients with autoimmune condition like genital LS after treatment with PRP.

Methods:

Over a 2-year period at FBW Gynaecology Plus, we had a total of 28 patients with confirmed LS on biopsy, unresponsive to topical steroid treatment. After acquiring informed consent, patients’ own blood was centrifuged on site and injected under local anesthesia to the external genitalia.

Results:

Almost all of our patients showed clinical improvement in the size of their lesions, and in 8 cases, lesions totally disappeared after treatment with PRP. Symptoms disappeared in 15 of the 28 patients after treatment, with no need for further steroid therapy in 23 patients. Thirteen women experienced partial symptom relief.

Conclusions:

Based on our limited findings, we hypothesize that PRP presents a potential alternative to topical steroids for treatment of vulvovaginal autoimmune conditions such as LS. A larger pilot and/or randomized controlled trial study is required to evaluate this finding further.

Histologic Evidence of New Collagen Formulation Using Platelet Rich Plasma in Skin Rejuvenation: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous concentration of human platelets contained in a small volume of plasma and has recently been shown to accelerate rejuvenate aging skin by various growth factors and cell adhesion molecules.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intradermal injection of PRP in the human facial rejuvenation.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, single-center, single-dose, open-label, non-randomized controlled clinical study. PRP injected to the upper site of this right infra-auricular area and all face. Saline was injected to the left infra-auricular area. Histopathological examinations were performed before PRP treatment, 28 days after the PRP, and saline (control) treatments.

RESULTS

Twenty women ranging in age from 40 to 49 years (mean age, 43.65±2.43 years) were enrolled in the study. The mean optical densities (MODs) of collagen in the pre-treatment, control, and PRP-treated area were measured. They were 539±93.2, 787±134.15, 1,019±178, respectively. In the MOD of PRP, 89.05 percent improvement was found when MOD of PRP was compared with MOD of pre-treatment. The mean MOD of collagen fibers was clearly highest on the PRP side (p<0.001). The PRP-to-saline improvement ratio (89.05% to 46.01%) was 1.93:1. No serious side effects were detected.

CONCLUSION

PRP increases dermal collagen levels not only by growth factors, but also by skin needling (the mesotherapy technique 'point by point'). PRP application could be considered as an effective (even a single application) and safety procedure for facial skin rejuvenation.

Interventions for acne scars

BACKGROUND

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.

Skin needling as a treatment for acne scarring: An up-to-date review of the literature

Background

Skin needling is a technique used to improve the appearance of acne scarring.

Objective

To comprehensively review the medical literature regarding skin needling as a treatment for acne scarring.

Methods

A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases, in addition to reviewing the bibliographies of relevant articles.

Results

Ten studies presented patients treated with skin needling alone, while eight studies discussed skin needling in combination with other treatments for acne scarring. All studies showed improvements in scarring after needling, with 12 reporting statistical significance. The median number of treatments when needling was used alone was three, the median duration between treatments was 4 weeks, and the median needle length used was 1.5 mm. Reported adverse events were infrequent and included post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, “tram track” scarring, acne, and milia. There were no reports of bacterial infections.

Limitations

The studies reviewed were heterogeneous in design and of variable validity, with some not reporting statistical significance.

Conclusion

There is moderate evidence to suggest that skin needling is beneficial and safe for the treatment of acne scarring. However, double-blinded, randomized controlled trials are required to make more definitive conclusions.