背景:痤疮是一种常见的疾病,可导致永久性疤痕。痤疮疤痕可以分为三类:萎缩性;肥厚性;和瘢痕疙瘩。萎缩性疤痕可以进一步细分为:冰锥;滚动;和棚车。
目的:我们对过去十年进行了全面的文献检索,以确定常用治疗痤疮后瘢痕形成的疗效和不良反应。
结果:共确定了36篇有关以下干预措施的相关文章:细分(n=10),磨皮术(n=1),微针(n=8),真皮填充剂(n=5),和化学剥离(n=12)。
结论:切除术后痤疮后瘢痕外观的改善在10-100%的范围内。微晶磨皮取得了最不重要的结果。总共有27.3%的患者尽管进行了8次治疗,但没有获得任何益处。只有9.1%取得了良好的效果。用微针治疗的所有患者在31-62%的范围内实现了疤痕外观的一些改善。真皮填充剂也带来了有利的结果。特别是,用PPMA治疗导致84%的患者改善.利用化学果皮,三氯乙酸(TCA)CROSS在73.3%的患者中实现了>70%的改善,而20%的乙醇酸没有导致25%的任何改善。
结论:痤疮后瘢痕形成是一种常见且具有挑战性的疾病,没有简单而明确的解决方案。上述干预措施均有不同程度的疗效,每个人都有优点和缺点。所有这些都被认为是安全的,很少和短暂的不良反应。然而,有必要对更多患者进行进一步试验,以便就其疗效得出更具体的结论.
BACKGROUND: Acne is a common condition that can result in permanent scarring. Acne scars can be broken down into three categories: atrophic; hypertrophic; and keloidal. Atrophic scars can be further sub-classified into: ice pick; rolling; and boxcar.
OBJECTIVE: We have performed a comprehensive literature search of the last ten years in order to determine the efficacy and adverse reactions of commonly used treatments against post-acne scarring.
RESULTS: A total of 36 relevant articles were identified on the following interventions: subcision (n = 10), dermabrasion (n = 1), microneedling (n = 8), dermal fillers (n = 5), and chemical
peeling (n = 12).
CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in the appearance of post-acne scarring following subcision is in the range of 10-100%. Microdermabrasion achieved the least significant results. A total of 27.3% patients did not achieve any benefit despite eight treatment sessions, and only 9.1% achieved good results. All patients treated with microneedling achieved some improvement in scar appearance in the range of 31-62%. Dermal fillers also led to favourable outcomes. In particular, treatment with PPMA led to improvement in 84% of patients. Utilising chemical peels, trichloroacetic acid (TCA) CROSS achieved >70% improvement in 73.3% of patients, whereas 20% glycolic acid did not lead to any improvement in 25%.
CONCLUSIONS: 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 a larger number of patients are necessary in order to reach more concrete conclusions regarding their efficacy.