-
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2017Keloids and hypertrophic scars are caused by cutaneous injury and irritation, including trauma, insect bite, burn, surgery, vaccination, skin piercing, acne,... (Review)
Review
Keloids and hypertrophic scars are caused by cutaneous injury and irritation, including trauma, insect bite, burn, surgery, vaccination, skin piercing, acne, folliculitis, chicken pox, and herpes zoster infection. Notably, superficial injuries that do not reach the reticular dermis never cause keloidal and hypertrophic scarring. This suggests that these pathological scars are due to injury to this skin layer and the subsequent aberrant wound healing therein. The latter is characterized by continuous and histologically localized inflammation. As a result, the reticular layer of keloids and hypertrophic scars contains inflammatory cells, increased numbers of fibroblasts, newly formed blood vessels, and collagen deposits. Moreover, proinflammatory factors, such as interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α are upregulated in keloid tissues, which suggests that, in patients with keloids, proinflammatory genes in the skin are sensitive to trauma. This may promote chronic inflammation, which in turn may cause the invasive growth of keloids. In addition, the upregulation of proinflammatory factors in pathological scars suggests that, rather than being skin tumors, keloids and hypertrophic scars are inflammatory disorders of skin, specifically inflammatory disorders of the reticular dermis. Various external and internal post-wounding stimuli may promote reticular inflammation. The nature of these stimuli most likely shapes the characteristics, quantity, and course of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Specifically, it is likely that the intensity, frequency, and duration of these stimuli determine how quickly the scars appear, the direction and speed of growth, and the intensity of symptoms. These proinflammatory stimuli include a variety of local, systemic, and genetic factors. These observations together suggest that the clinical differences between keloids and hypertrophic scars merely reflect differences in the intensity, frequency, and duration of the inflammation of the reticular dermis. At present, physicians cannot (or at least find it very difficult to) control systemic and genetic risk factors of keloids and hypertrophic scars. However, they can use a number of treatment modalities that all, interestingly, act by reducing inflammation. They include corticosteroid injection/tape/ointment, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, compression therapy, stabilization therapy, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy, and surgical methods that reduce skin tension.
Topics: Animals; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Dermis; Humans; Interleukins; Keloid
PubMed: 28287424
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18030606 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2020Microneedling (MN) is used for the treatment of scars, amongst other indications. Although used in Asia and the Middle East for decades, related to the supposed lack of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Microneedling (MN) is used for the treatment of scars, amongst other indications. Although used in Asia and the Middle East for decades, related to the supposed lack of post-procedure pigmentary alterations even in darker skin types, MN only recently gained attention in the United States as an effective, well-tolerated aesthetic treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the Medline database was completed using search terms "microneedle" or "microneedling" or "micro needle" or "micro needling" and "scar". Included articles were written in English and discussed the use of MN for the treatment of scars in human subjects.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight studies were included for review, with a total of 1845 patients treated for acne scarring, hypertrophic or keloid scars, and those resulting from surgery, trauma, varicella or smallpox. MN and its counterpart fractional radiofrequency MN (FRF-MN) were used as monotherapy or in combination with topical, surgical or systemic modalities. MN and FRF-MN treatment resulted in clinical improvement of scar appearance from baseline. No serious adverse events occurred.
CONCLUSION
MN is a well-tolerated, minimally invasive procedure that can be used for the treatment of scars with a high level of patient satisfaction. Further clinical studies are needed to develop standardized treatment protocols.
PubMed: 33376377
DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S267192 -
Dermatology and Therapy Aug 2021Previous approaches to acne management have focused on the four main factors implicated in acne, namely, androgen-mediated sebogenesis (considered integral to acne),... (Review)
Review
Previous approaches to acne management have focused on the four main factors implicated in acne, namely, androgen-mediated sebogenesis (considered integral to acne), hyperkeratinization, colonization with Cutibacterium acnes, and inflammation related to both innate and adaptive mechanisms. Recent advances have facilitated potential novel approaches to acne management, as the pathophysiology and the immunological aspects related to acne and wound healing have evolved. Particular targets that have been shown to be closely involved in acne pathophysiology and wound healing include interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). Biological antibodies targeting IL-1β, IL-17, IL-23, and TNFα could provide novel approaches for treating severe acne and related disorders. Acne is primarily a disease associated with sebogenesis. Monosaturated free acids are important components. Insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) promotes the proliferation and differentiation of sebocytes and IL-1β. Research into the microbiome may also provide insights into potential future therapeutic options for acne. Scars, both atrophic and hypertrophic, are common sequelae to acne. Risk factors associated with the development of acne scars include genetic, systemic, local, and lifestyle factors. Pro-inflammatory cytokines have been shown to play a crucial role in the development of acne-induced hypertrophic scars. Treatment for extensive inflammatory keloid scarring is limited. Surgery and postoperative radiotherapy are two possible options. Transforming growth factor-β (TGFβ), IL-6, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), IGF-1, and B cells are found in keloid or hypertrophic scar tissues. Biological antibodies targeting these cytokines may be a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of this type of scar in the future. Future treatment for acne should embrace approaches that target the main etiological factors of acne. In particular, specific emphasis on aggressive treatment in the acute inflammatory phase to reduce the likelihood of scarring and other clinical sequelae, such as pigmentary changes would be highly desirable. Treatment for established acne-induced sequelae should also be considered.
PubMed: 34115308
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-021-00552-6 -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal May 2017BotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) is now widely established for the main approved indication of reducing glabellar lines, and is also widely used off-label to improve the... (Review)
Review
BotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) is now widely established for the main approved indication of reducing glabellar lines, and is also widely used off-label to improve the appearance of wrinkles and lines in other parts of the face. The number of aesthetic procedures continues to increase as the patient population becomes more diverse, in particular with increasing numbers of people of color and men. Further developments in treatment may continue to expand the audience for BoNT-A by making procedures more comfortable and by delivering a more natural, less static appearance. These may be achieved through use of combinations of BoNT-A with other aesthetic procedures, tailoring the dose of toxin to the patient's muscle mass or by using novel injection and application techniques. Beyond amelioration of facial lines, encouraging results have been seen with the use of BoNT-A to improve the appearance of hypertrophic and keloid scars and even to prevent them. Studies have been conducted with scars in various parts of the body and further research is ongoing. Dermatological and other medical uses for BoNT-A are also active areas of research. Injections of BoNT-A have been shown to reduce signs and symptoms of acne, rosacea, and psoriasis, to reduce neuromuscular pain, and to bring about significant improvements in a number of rare diseases that are caused or exacerbated by hyperhidrosis. This paper reviews these new uses for BoNT-A, looking at the rationale for their use and discussing the results of published case studies and clinical trials. These areas have shown great promise to date, but more and larger clinical studies will be required before these treatments become a clinical reality. To this end details are also provided of clinical trials currently listed in the main clinical trials database to highlight research areas of particular interest.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cicatrix; Clinical Trials as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Drug Compounding; Face; Facial Muscles; Humans; Hyperhidrosis; Injections, Intradermal; Injections, Intramuscular; Laser Therapy; Neuromuscular Agents; Off-Label Use; Pain; Precision Medicine; Psoriasis; Rare Diseases; Rosacea; Skin Aging; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28388720
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjx005 -
Skin Therapy Letter Nov 2022Acne vulgaris is a troubling skin disease known to have both physiologic and psychological effects on patients. Acne scars, a frequent complication, can further impact...
Acne vulgaris is a troubling skin disease known to have both physiologic and psychological effects on patients. Acne scars, a frequent complication, can further impact patients' quality of life. Scars result from an impairment in the healing process. Acne scars can be categorized as follows: atrophic scars (including ice pick, rolling, boxcar subtypes) and trophic (including hypertrophic and keloid scars), the latter being less common. Though various treatment approaches have been suggested, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on effective, type-specific acne scar approaches. Herein, we aim to review the current evidence for treating various acne scars.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Acne Vulgaris; Keloid; Wound Healing; Atrophy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36469561
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acne 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult
PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2 -
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of... Jun 2019Transgender persons receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy and procedures may face specific skin conditions. Skin diseases in transgender patients often are... (Review)
Review
Transgender persons receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy and procedures may face specific skin conditions. Skin diseases in transgender patients often are underdiagnosed and underrecognized despite their important impact on quality of life and mental health. This article discusses pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of common skin diseases in the transgender populations. For transmasculine patients, conditions include acne vulgaris and male pattern hair loss. For transfeminine patients, conditions include hirsutism, pseudofolliculitis barbae, and melasma. Postprocedural keloids and other cutaneous complications are discussed. Unique aspects of skin health in transgender persons should be considered in the context of multidisciplinary gender-affirming care.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Alopecia; Hirsutism; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Keloid; Sex Reassignment Procedures; Transgender Persons; Transsexualism
PubMed: 31027550
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecl.2019.01.005 -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2024The vast majority of publications in dermatology refer to lightly pigmented skin, with few addressing the peculiarities of black skin. In addition there is no consensus... (Review)
Review
The vast majority of publications in dermatology refer to lightly pigmented skin, with few addressing the peculiarities of black skin. In addition there is no consensus on what it means to be black in different regions of the world. The lack of knowledge on the subject makes it difficult to recognize and manage dermatoses in this type of skin. This article aims to review the literature on intrinsic characteristics, as well as epidemiological and clinical aspects of the cutaneous manifestations of different dermatoses in black skin. It was found that there are sometimes striking differences, in the structural, biological, and functional aspects when comparing lightly pigmented and black skin. There are also physiological changes that need to be recognized to avoid unnecessary interventions. Some dermatoses have a higher incidence in black skin, such as acne, eczema, dyschromia and dermatophytosis. On the other hand, several dermatoses are more specific to black skin, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae, keloid, dermatosis papulosa nigra, ulcers caused by sickle-cell anemia, dactylolysis spontanea, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis of Gougerot and Carteaud, and some diseases of the hair and scalp (including fragile and brittle hair, traction alopecia, folliculitis keloidalis nuchae, folliculitis dissecans and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia). A spectrum of peculiar aspects of specific dermatoses, including sarcoidosis, lichen planus (with emphasis on the pigmentosus variant), psoriasis, lupus erythematosus, vitiligo, syphilis, pityriasis versicolor, and neoplasms are highlighted. In the latter, characteristics of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma are compared, in addition to highlighting unusual aspects of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, endemic Kaposi sarcoma, and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans.
Topics: Humans; Skin Diseases; Skin Pigmentation; Skin; Black People
PubMed: 38310012
DOI: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.10.001 -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Aug 2023In aesthetic clinical practice, botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is best known for its use as a neuromodulator for the treatment of dynamic facial lines; however, when...
Microtoxin for Improving Pore Size, Skin Laxity, Sebum Control, and Scars: A Roundtable on Integrating Intradermal Botulinum Toxin Type A Microdoses Into Clinical Practice.
BACKGROUND
In aesthetic clinical practice, botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is best known for its use as a neuromodulator for the treatment of dynamic facial lines; however, when injected intradermally as microdroplets, BoNT-A can improve skin quality and overall skin appearance.
OBJECTIVES
To discuss key aspects of microtoxin use in clinical practice and provide expert guidance on utilization.
METHODS
As part of a continuing medical education lecture series and roundtable, the authors discussed key aspects of microtoxin patient selection, injection technique, and safety.
RESULTS
The experiences of expert faculty are shared here. Clinical experience is consistent with reported data. Microtoxin can be used to reduce pore size, sebum production, rosacea, acne, and fine lines, and to improve jawline and neck definition. Intradermal injection can also be employed for the improvement of transverse neck lines as well as for the safe prevention and management of scars and keloids.
CONCLUSIONS
Expanding the use of BoNT-A, a predictable, minimally invasive, and affordable treatment to address commonly encountered complaints is appealing. The authors have found that making patients aware of microtoxin as a treatment option results in an increased interest in and utilization of BoNT-A, and high satisfaction among appropriately selected patients.
Topics: Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Sebum; Skin; Injections, Intradermal; Keloid
PubMed: 36857534
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjad044