PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that affects a significant percentage of adolescents, with scarring being one of its permanent complications. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of using botulinum toxin type A (BTA) in combination with cross-linked and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of atrophic acne scars.
METHODS: Our study is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted on 16 patients with atrophic acne scars. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group received a single session of BTA and crossed link HA combination, while the other group received two sessions of BTA and non-crossed link HA, 1 month apart. The patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months after baseline to evaluate the number and area of fine and large pores and spots, scar grading, patient satisfaction, and complications.
RESULTS: The mean age of individuals in both the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups was 32.75 ± 4.26 and 31.50 ± 8.48 years, respectively (p = 0.71). In terms of gender, three (37.5%) and seven (87.5%) individuals in the cross-linked and non-cross-linked HA groups were female, respectively (p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the count and area of fine and large pores and spots between the two groups at baseline and the first follow-up session. However, in the second follow-up session, the non-cross-linked HA group had significantly better results than the cross-linked HA group in terms of large pores count and area (p = 0.01). In terms of changes over time, the non-cross-linked HA group showed significantly better improvements in the count and area of large pores compared to the cross-linked HA group (p = 0.03). Additionally, both groups experienced a significant decrease in the count and area of fine pores over time (p = 0.001), but the amount of changes was not statistically significant between the two groups (p = 0.06). Concerning acne grade, initially, 62.5% and 12.5% of cases in the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups, respectively, had severe grades. However, in the last session, these percentages significantly decreased to 0% for both groups (p = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). In terms of treatment complications, none of the patients experienced any adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that both cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA were effective in reducing acne severity and improving the appearance of pores and spots. The treatments had similar effects on fine pores, spots, and overall acne severity. However, non-cross-linked HA appeared to have a better result on large pores compared to cross-linked HA.
METHODS: Our study is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted on 16 patients with atrophic acne scars. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group received a single session of BTA and crossed link HA combination, while the other group received two sessions of BTA and non-crossed link HA, 1 month apart. The patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months after baseline to evaluate the number and area of fine and large pores and spots, scar grading, patient satisfaction, and complications.
RESULTS: The mean age of individuals in both the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups was 32.75 ± 4.26 and 31.50 ± 8.48 years, respectively (p = 0.71). In terms of gender, three (37.5%) and seven (87.5%) individuals in the cross-linked and non-cross-linked HA groups were female, respectively (p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the count and area of fine and large pores and spots between the two groups at baseline and the first follow-up session. However, in the second follow-up session, the non-cross-linked HA group had significantly better results than the cross-linked HA group in terms of large pores count and area (p = 0.01). In terms of changes over time, the non-cross-linked HA group showed significantly better improvements in the count and area of large pores compared to the cross-linked HA group (p = 0.03). Additionally, both groups experienced a significant decrease in the count and area of fine pores over time (p = 0.001), but the amount of changes was not statistically significant between the two groups (p = 0.06). Concerning acne grade, initially, 62.5% and 12.5% of cases in the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups, respectively, had severe grades. However, in the last session, these percentages significantly decreased to 0% for both groups (p = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). In terms of treatment complications, none of the patients experienced any adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that both cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA were effective in reducing acne severity and improving the appearance of pores and spots. The treatments had similar effects on fine pores, spots, and overall acne severity. However, non-cross-linked HA appeared to have a better result on large pores compared to cross-linked HA.
摘要：
背景：寻常痤疮是一种常见的皮肤病，会影响相当比例的青少年，疤痕是其永久性并发症之一。这项研究旨在比较使用A型肉毒杆菌毒素（BTA）与交联和非交联透明质酸（HA）联合治疗萎缩性痤疮疤痕的疗效和安全性。
方法：我们的研究是随机的，对16例萎缩性痤疮疤痕患者进行了双盲临床试验。患者被随机分配到两组中的一组：一组接受一次BTA和交叉连接HA组合，而另一组接收了BTA和非交叉链路HA的两个会话，相隔一个月。基线后3个月和6个月对患者进行随访，评估细毛孔和大毛孔和斑点的数量和面积，疤痕分级,患者满意度,和并发症。
结果：交联HA和非交联HA组的平均年龄分别为32.75±4.26和31.50±8.48岁，分别(p=0.71)。在性别方面,交联和非交联HA组中有3名（37.5％）和7名（87.5％）为女性，分别(p=0.11)。在基线和第一次随访阶段，两组之间的细孔和大孔和斑点的计数和面积没有显着差异。然而,在第二次后续会议上，在大孔计数和面积方面，非交联HA组的结果明显优于交联HA组（p=0.01）。随着时间的推移，与交联HA组相比,非交联HA组在大孔的数量和面积方面表现出明显更好的改善(p=0.03).此外,随着时间的推移，两组的细孔数量和面积均显着减少（p=0.001），但两组间的变化量无统计学意义(p=0.06).关于痤疮等级，最初,在交联HA和非交联HA组中分别有62.5%和12.5%的病例,分别,有严重的成绩。然而,在最后一次会议中，两组的百分比均显著降至0%(p分别为0.002和0.005).在治疗并发症方面，没有患者出现任何不良反应.
结论：研究表明，交联HA和非交联HA均可有效降低痤疮严重程度并改善毛孔和斑点的外观。这些治疗对细孔有类似的效果，斑点,和整体痤疮严重程度。然而,与交联HA相比,非交联HA似乎在大孔上具有更好的结果。
方法：我们的研究是随机的，对16例萎缩性痤疮疤痕患者进行了双盲临床试验。患者被随机分配到两组中的一组：一组接受一次BTA和交叉连接HA组合，而另一组接收了BTA和非交叉链路HA的两个会话，相隔一个月。基线后3个月和6个月对患者进行随访，评估细毛孔和大毛孔和斑点的数量和面积，疤痕分级,患者满意度,和并发症。
结果：交联HA和非交联HA组的平均年龄分别为32.75±4.26和31.50±8.48岁，分别(p=0.71)。在性别方面,交联和非交联HA组中有3名（37.5％）和7名（87.5％）为女性，分别(p=0.11)。在基线和第一次随访阶段，两组之间的细孔和大孔和斑点的计数和面积没有显着差异。然而,在第二次后续会议上，在大孔计数和面积方面，非交联HA组的结果明显优于交联HA组（p=0.01）。随着时间的推移，与交联HA组相比,非交联HA组在大孔的数量和面积方面表现出明显更好的改善(p=0.03).此外,随着时间的推移，两组的细孔数量和面积均显着减少（p=0.001），但两组间的变化量无统计学意义(p=0.06).关于痤疮等级，最初,在交联HA和非交联HA组中分别有62.5%和12.5%的病例,分别,有严重的成绩。然而,在最后一次会议中，两组的百分比均显著降至0%(p分别为0.002和0.005).在治疗并发症方面，没有患者出现任何不良反应.
结论：研究表明，交联HA和非交联HA均可有效降低痤疮严重程度并改善毛孔和斑点的外观。这些治疗对细孔有类似的效果，斑点,和整体痤疮严重程度。然而,与交联HA相比,非交联HA似乎在大孔上具有更好的结果。
