Cargando…
Efficacy and Safety of Carboxytherapy versus Combined Microneedling with Topical Glutathione in the Treatment of Patients with Periorbital Hyperpigmentation: An Evaluator-Blind, Split-Face, Controlled Pilot Clinical Trial
BACKGROUND: Periorbital hyperpigmentation (POH) is a common skin condition that presents as infraorbital darkening. POH has a multifactorial etiology. Studies evaluating POH treatment are several with varying satisfaction results. OBJECTIVES: To compare carboxytherapy and microneedling (MN) combined...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36865870 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijd.ijd_394_21 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Periorbital hyperpigmentation (POH) is a common skin condition that presents as infraorbital darkening. POH has a multifactorial etiology. Studies evaluating POH treatment are several with varying satisfaction results. OBJECTIVES: To compare carboxytherapy and microneedling (MN) combined with topical glutathione for POH treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A split-face pilot clinical trial was conducted on 31 female patients with POH. Carboxytherapy injection was done at the right periorbital area, and MN with topical glutathione (Left periorbital area), for 6 biweekly sessions. Visual analogue scale (VAS), dermoscopic evaluation, patient satisfaction, and patient dermatology life quality index questionnaire (DLQI), safety evaluation were done with 3 months follow up. The trial registry number is NCT04389788. RESULTS: Carboxytherapy showed a higher significant improvement as regards VAS evaluation compared to MN with glutathione during the active treatment phase (P = 0.001) and during the follow-up phase (P = 0.006). Also, the dermoscopic evaluation showed a statistically significant improvement in the Carboxytherapy group. DLQI showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001). As regards patient satisfaction, carboxytherapy showed in comparison to MN with glutathione (80.6% vs 25.8% in moderate satisfaction) and (3.2% vs 0% in marked satisfaction respectively) (P = .05). As regards the patients' safety, there was no significant difference between both eyes (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: Carboxytherapy showed higher efficacy than MN with glutathione in POH patients. Carboxytherapy improved clinical, dermoscopic, patient satisfaction, and patient DLQI; with a good safety profile. |
---|