Fractional radiofrequency treatment in acne scars: Systematic review of current evidence

Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acne is a chronic inflammatory and immune-mediated disease of the pilosebaceous unit (the skin structure consisting of a hair follicle and its associated sebaceous gland). It is characterised by non-inflammatory lesions (open and closed comedones) and inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts). Lesions may be present on the face, thorax, and back, with variable severity. Acne exhibits a global distribution and has a growing prevalence. Acne vulgaris is the most common form. Acne gives rise to complications such as scars and can seriously affect people's mental health, especially those with severe acne. Acne has a huge impact on the quality of life and self-esteem of those affected.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of non-systemic pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions (physical therapy and complementary therapies) in the treatment of acne vulgaris and related skin complications.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, and Embase to 2 December 2021, and checked the reference lists of included reviews. At least two authors were responsible for screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. We excluded reviews with high risk of bias as assessed with the ROBIS tool. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE (as carried out by the authors of the included reviews or ourselves). We provide comprehensive evidence from the review data, including summary of findings tables, summary of results tables, and evidence maps.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved and assessed a total of 733 records; however, only six reviews (five Cochrane reviews and one non-Cochrane review) with low risk of bias met the overview inclusion criteria. The six reviews involved 40,910 people with acne from 275 trials and 1316 people with acne scars from 37 trials. The age of the participants ranged from 10 to 59 years, with an average age range from 18 to 30 years. Four reviews included original trials involving only female participants and three reviews included original trials with only male participants. Main results for clinically important comparisons: Benzoyl peroxide versus placebo or no treatment: In two trials involving 1012 participants over 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide may reduce the total (mean difference (MD) -16.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.51 to -5.78), inflammatory (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.02 to -1.22), and non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -9.69, 95% CI -15.08 to -4.29) when compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials including 1073 participants (time point: 10 and 12 weeks) suggested benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect in improving participants' global self-assessment compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that benzoyl peroxide may improve investigators' global assessment (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28; 6 trials, 4110 participants, long-term treatment (12 weeks)) compared to placebo. Thirteen trials including 4287 participants over 10 to 12 weeks suggested benzoyl peroxide may increase the risk of a less serious adverse event compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical retinoids: Benzoyl peroxide may increase the percentage change in total lesion count compared to adapalene (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 10.8, 95% CI 3.38 to 18.22; 1 trial, 205 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). When compared to adapalene, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): percentage change in inflammatory lesion counts (MD -7.7, 95% CI -16.46 to 1.06; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), percentage change in non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -3.9, 95% CI -13.31 to 5.51; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 4 trials, 1123 participants, 11 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigators' global assessment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 3 trials, 1965 participants, 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, 1573 participants, 5 trials, 11 to 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical antibiotics: When compared to clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): total lesion counts (MD -3.50, 95% CI -7.54 to 0.54; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), inflammatory lesion counts (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.99 to 0.59; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -2.4, 95% CI -5.3 to 0.5; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 trial, 240 participants, 10 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigator's global assessment (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.45; 2 trials, 2277 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.64; 5 trials, 2842 participants, 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). For these clinically important comparisons, no review collected data for the following outcomes: frequency of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event or quality of life. No review collected data for the following comparisons: topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, topical retinoids versus placebo or no treatment, or topical retinoids versus topical antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises the evidence for topical therapy, phototherapy, and complementary therapy for acne and acne scars. We found no high-certainty evidence for the effects of any therapy included. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews related to acne and acne scars had limitations (low methodological quality). We could not summarise the evidence for topical retinoids and topical antibiotics due to insufficient high-quality systematic reviews. Future research should consider pooled analysis of data on new emerging drugs for acne treatment (e.g. clascoterone) and focus more on acne complications.

A New Approach with Combined Microneedle and Sublative Fractional Radiofrequency for Photoaging Management: A Clinical, Histometric, and Immunohistochemical Study

BACKGROUND

Fractional radiofrequency (FRF) has been reported to be effective in improving wrinkles. A combination of microneedle and sublative fractional radiofrequency (SFRF) may have the potential synergy to improve photoaged skin.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined microneedle and SFRF in photoaging management.

METHODS

This prospective study included 12 subjects with moderate photoaging (skin phototype III-IV). The subjects received three consecutive combined microneedle and sublative FRF at 1-month intervals. Punch biopsies were obtained before and after three months of treatment. Routine H&E, Masson-trichrome, Orcein staining, histometric measurements, as well as Collagen type I and Elastin immunohistochemical staining were performed.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was noticed regarding skin tightening and texture (p < 0.05), rhytides, and volunteers' satisfaction (p < 0.001). Collagen fibers appeared better organized, with a significant increase in collagen type I (p = 0.001). Meanwhile, normal-appearing elastic fibers were restored, and a significant reduction in abnormal elastin was achieved (p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

Combined microneedle and sublative FRF may provide a new therapeutic approach for photoaged skin.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Combination of Fractional Microneedling Radiofrequency and Ablative Fractional Laser versus Ablative Fractional Laser Alone for Acne and Acne Scars

PURPOSE

Fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMR) systems are used to treat inflammatory acne and scarring. Nonetheless, few controlled studies have combined this treatment with the traditional ablative fractional laser (AFL). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of FMR and AFL versus AFL alone in treating acne and acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 20-week, randomized, split-face study, 23 Korean patients with facial acne and acne scars underwent FMR and AFL treatments. One half of each patient's face was randomly assigned to receive FMR+AFL, whereas the other half received AFL alone. Treatments were administered in three consecutive sessions at 4-week intervals. This study investigated the severity of inflammatory acne, acne scars, individual lesion counts, depressed scar volumes, as well as patient and physician satisfaction. In addition, five patients underwent skin biopsy, and sebum output was measured.

RESULTS

The FMR+AFL treatment demonstrated superior efficacy compared to AFL alone in terms of inflammatory acne and acne scar grading, lesion counts, and subjective satisfaction. The side effects were minimal and well-tolerated in both groups. Immunohistochemical findings from skin biopsy samples revealed that the application of FMR+AFL could induce an inhibitory effect on sebum secretion at the molecular level.

CONCLUSION

FMR combined with AFL is a well-tolerated and effective treatment modality for inflammatory acne and acne scarring.

Comparative efficacy and safety of six photoelectric therapies for the atrophic acne scars: A network meta-analysis

Objectives

This network meta-analysis assessed the relative efficacy and safety of six common photoelectric therapies including 1064-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG), fractional carbon dioxide laser(FSCO2), fractional micro-plasma radiofrequency(Plasma), micro-needling fractional radiofrequency (MRF), 1550nm or 1540nm erbium-glass non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er: YAG).

Methods

A comprehensive search to identify relevant studies was conducted using four electronic databases. Outcome measures were extracted based on subjective and objective indexes, including the dermatologists’ evaluation(DE), the patients’ overall satisfaction(PS), VAS score, and Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).

Results

Eleven published clinical research studies, involving 405 patients were included in this study. Ranking of DE from large to small is as follows: Nd: YAG, FSCO2, Er: YAG, Plasma, NAFL, MRF. In terms of PS, the rand from high to low can be described as follows: Er: YAG, Nd: YAG, FSCO2, Plasma, NAFL, MRF. In connection with the sequencing of adverse events, pain severity from slight to severe as follows: Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, FSCO2, NAFL, MRF, Plasma. The probability of having PIH are presented in order from lowest to highest as follows: MRF, Plasma, Nd: YAG, NAFL, Er: YAG, FSCO2.

Conclusion

FSCO2 remains the mainstream of potentially curative treatment, then again Nd: YAG and Er: YAG require greater efforts to prove their superior effectiveness. NAFL might be appropriate for mild and moderate improvement with its strengths of good tolerance while Plasma fits into patients with higher pain thresholds but an expectation of higher results. MRF has not given expression on absolute predominance for the present.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42021242160

(available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

Fractional microneedle radiofrequency versus fractional carbon dioxide laser in the treatment of postburn hypertrophic scars

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

New and improved treatment modalities, including lasers and energy-based devices, are promising treatment options for hypertrophic scars. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMR) compared with fractional carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) laser in the treatment of postburn hypertrophic scars.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with hypertrophic scars were enrolled in the study. Two areas in each patient were randomly assigned to fractional CO₂ laser or FMR. Four sessions, 6-8 weeks apart were performed. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used for clinical evaluation, H & E and orcein-stained samples were examined for histopathological assessment, and tissue transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFβ₁ ) levels were measured for biochemical evaluation.

RESULTS

Both fractional CO₂ and FMR-treated areas showed significant improvement in all parameters 1 month after treatment. Fractional CO2-treated areas showed a higher degree of improvement compared with FMR in OSAS (p = 0.025), elastin grading (p = 0.004), and TGFβ₁ levels (p = 0.000). Patients reported less downtime and showed less postinflammatory hyperpigmentation with FMR compared with fractional CO_2, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.327, p = 0.231; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate the value of FMR as an effective alternative to fractional CO₂ in the treatment of hypertrophic scars, with a potentially favorable safety profile.

Safety and efficacy of fractional radiofrequency for the treatment and reduction of acne scarring: A prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Skin rejuvenation with radiofrequency has been a widely used treatment modality for the safe and efficient remodeling of the dermis and revision of textural irregularities, achieved with minimal downtime. The efficacy of fractional radiofrequency (FRF) specifically for acne scarring has not been widely established. The objective of this clinical trial was to establish the efficacy and safety of FRF for moderate to severe acne scarring in a wide range of Fitzpatrick skin types using two different applicator tips to deliver energy to the skin (80-pin of up to 124 mJ/pin and 160-pin of up to 62 mJ/pin).

METHODS

Enrolled subjects received a series of three FRF treatments to the full face, each 4 weeks apart. A visual analog scale was utilized to assess pain of the treatment. Subject satisfaction questionnaires were completed at follow-up visits at 6 and 12 weeks post final treatment. Photographs were graded for change by three blinded evaluators using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS).

RESULTS

Image sets of 23 enrolled subjects were assessed by blinded evaluation, showing a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.009) from the baseline visit to the 12-week follow-up on the GAIS for acne scarring. Subject satisfaction was high with subjects giving an average satisfaction score of 3.27 ("satisfied") out of 4. Pain was "mild" as treatments were rated an average of 2.15 on a 10-point visual analog scale. The GAIS score of the 80-pin tip improved patients' acne scars treated with that applicator by 1.06 points and 0.85 for the 160-pin tip. Ninety-five percent (95.5%) of subjects reported either a mild, moderate, or significant improvement to their treatment area. Ninety-one percent of subjects reported that they would recommend the treatment to a friend.

CONCLUSION

FRF produced a statistically significant improvement in acne scarring when assessed by independent blinded evaluators. No serious adverse events resulted from treatment by either applicator tip. Treatment pain was low and tolerable among subjects of all Fitzpatrick skin types. Subjects had high levels of satisfaction with the results.

Comparison of the efficacy of microneedling versus CO2 fractional laser to treat striae alba: A randomized clinical trial

Striae distensae (SD) are common skin conditions that have posed a significant challenge regarding their assessment and treatment. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of microneedling in comparison to fractional CO₂ laser therapy. Similar striae were selected and photographed. Each side was randomly assigned to be treated with CO₂ fractional laser or microneedling four times at monthly intervals and followed up for 10 months. Outcome measures including the length and width of the largest striae, dermatologist assessed improvement, patients' satisfaction, and visual analog scale (VAS) were assessed. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess the efficacy of treatments. Forty patients with a mean age of 28.1 years were included. The median cross-section of the largest striae decreased significantly in both groups (P-value <0.001), without statistically significant differences between the two groups before and 6 months after treatment. VAS also improved significantly in both groups, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in all visits. No clinically significant adverse effects were observed. Fractional CO₂ laser and microneedling are both efficient treatments to resolve SD. A new light should be shed on the microneedling modality as it is more economical than the other treatment options.

[Scientometric analysis of evidence-based studies of physical methods of post-acne scar correction]

The scope of physical methods for correcting the pathological skin scars is rapidly growing but the results of their use are often unsatisfactory. An inadequate approach to therapy without taking into account the assessment of their effectiveness leads to relapses, increased growth of scar tissue or the absence of a clinically significant effect which requires strict scientific evidence in the course of benign scientific studies.

OBJECTIVE

Scientometric analysis of evidence-based studies on the use of therapeutic physical factors in the correction of post-acne scars.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis of evidence-based studies in electronic databases (PEDro, PubMed, eLibrary) and in databases of systematic reviews (Cochrane database) for the period from 2015 to 2020 was carried out. The following terms in Russian and English were taken as key words: acne scars (acne scarring), physical therapy (physical therapy). The final assessment of physical methods of correction included mainly data from foreign systematic reviews, meta-analyzes of RCTs, data from individual RCTs in English and/or Russian and tests rated at 4 points or higher on the PEDro scale.

RESULTS

The clinical effects and supposed mechanisms of action of the currently proven therapeutic physical factors in the treatment of patients with post-acne scars are considered in detail. The most studied physical methods are technologies of high-intensity laser therapy (44.2%), fractional radiofrequency therapy (17%), combined methods of exposure (high-intensity laser therapy or micro-needling in combination with peels, fillers, PRP injection) (25%), micro-needling as monotherapy (5.8%) and microdermabrasion (4.5%) causing the most significant clinical changes and pronounced remodeling of the extracellular matrix of the skin in the area of scars.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for regular synthesis and analysis of existing evidence-based studies, as well as the implementation of new high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials to study the effect of physical correction methods on post-acne scars which serve as the basis for the development of clinical guidelines.

The early and late efficacy of single-pass fractional carbondioxide laser, fractional radiofrequency, and their combination in acne scars: A prospective, split-face, single-blinded, controlled clinical study

We investigated the effectiveness of fractional carbon dioxide laser (FCO₂ ) vs fractional radiofrequency (FRF) and FCO₂ vs FRF plus FCO₂ combination in the treatment of acne scars. Twenty-seven patients were included. Scar severity was scored with "Echelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné" (ECCA) by a dermatologist blinded to treatment. FCO₂ and FRF were administered to the right and left halves of the patients' faces, respectively, at the first three visits, once a month. At the fourth visit, FCO₂ was administered to both sides. Last evaluation was performed 6 months after the last treatment. Mean ECCA scores for both face halves decreased gradually at each visit compared with Visit-1; however, the effect size of decrease was higher in the right half of the face and in terms of gender differences was higher in women for both sides that the difference was more pronounced for the FRF side. There was no statistically significant change in the mean VAS patient satisfaction scores in the following visits compared with Visit-2 on both halves (P > .05). Side effects were similar; but lasted longer in the FCO₂ side. Both FCO₂ and FRF are effective treatment methods in the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Combining FCO₂ to FRF improves patient satisfaction. FRF may achieve better results in women compared with men. To our knowledge the study is unique prospective, controlled clinical study comparing the efficacy of FCO₂ and FRF plus FCO₂ combination treatments.

The efficacy and safety of fractional radiofrequency nanoneedle system in the treatment of atrophic acne scars in Asians

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatment modalities have been developed to treat atrophic acne scars with varying degrees of success. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) after acne scar treatments remain a major concern in Asian patients. Fractional radiofrequency (FRF) has been used in many dermatological skin conditions including acne scars.

AIMS

To determine the efficacy and safety of FRF nanoneedle system in the treatment of acne scars in Asians.

METHODS

This is a prospective, evaluator-blinded study with 25 subjects diagnosed with moderate to severe acne scarring. All subjects received 3 monthly treatments of the FRF nanoneedle system on both cheeks. Primary outcome was the clinical improvement of acne scars graded by 2 blinded dermatologists at baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Objective scar volume analysis was done using ultraviolet A (UVA) light video camera. Subjects' self-assessment, pain score, and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-three out of 25 subjects completed the study and attended all follow-up. Clinical improvement of acne scars was observed as early as 1-month follow-up. Objective evaluation of acne scar volume decreased significantly on all follow-up compared to baseline (P < .005). Majority of the subjects (48%) reported marked improvement in their acne scars. Adverse events such as pain, erythema, burning sensation, edema, scab formation, and PIH were mild and temporary.

CONCLUSIONS

FRF nanoneedle system is a safe and effective treatment for acne scars in Asians. However, despite the significant changes in the scar volume, caution should be used to avoid excessive coagulation resulting in PIH.

The Treatment of Acne Scars, a 30-Year Journey

Over the past 30 years, the treatment of acne scars has undergone changes that have been significantly influenced by the concurrent development of new devices. The advent of fractional resurfacing lasers was a watershed moment for acne scarring therapy. The author recounts a career history of considerations of acne scarring treatments as well as the literature supporting the experiences causing changes in practice. Fractional ablative and nonablative lasers, sublative radiofrequency, picosecond lasers, microneedling with and without radiofrequency and fillers are the bulk of the treatments covered, along with a discussion of combination therapy. A practical algorithm for acne scarring for selection of treatment modalities is presented.

Successful Treatment of Facial Atrophic Acne Scars by Fractional Radiofrequency Microneedle in Vietnamese Patients

AIM:

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the fractional Radiofrequency microneedle treatment for facial atrophic acne scars.

METHODS:

A group of 52 patients were recruited for the study. Goodman & Baron’s acne scar grading system was used for assessment at their first visit and the end of 3 months after the last treatment session.

RESULTS:

The results displayed that 73.1% of patients have the improvement of the Goodman scar level after four times of treatment. The Goodman and Baron scar point mean was reduced from 16 ± 7.6 to 5.6 ± 5.0 (p < 0.01). Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was experienced in 5 patients (9.6%).

CONCLUSION:

The microneedle fractional Radiofrequency is an effective treatment method of facial atrophic acne scars, with minor side effects and a short downtime.

Treatment of striae distensae: An evidence-based approach

Striae distensae (SD), otherwise known as "stretchmarks," are a common presenting complaint, particularly in young healthy women. SD are hypothesized to form in a patient when the cross-linked collagen is "overstretched" and rupture of this collagen matrix causes the striae. Thus, many treatments work by increasing collagen synthesis. This review critically appraises the evidence to date for the treatment of SD, including both energy-based devices and topical treatments.

Efficacy of fractionated microneedle radiofrequency with and without adding subcision for the treatment of atrophic facial acne scars: A randomized split-face clinical study

BACKGROUND

There is no gold standard treatment for facial acne scars, and overall, little literature exists about the combination therapy for treatment of acne scar.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of fractionated microneedle radiofrequency (FMR) vs FMR combined with subcision for the treatment of atrophic acne scars.

PATIENTS/METHODS

This was a randomized, split-face clinical study of 25 patients with II-IV Fitzpatrick skin types with moderate to severe facial atrophic acne scars. Initially, standard subcision by Nokor needle was performed on one side. Two weeks after subcision, FMR treatment was performed on both cheeks of each participant. Second and third FMR treatment sessions were performed within 4-week intervals. Two-blinded dermatologists performed clinical assessments using a quartile grading scale, and patients were also asked to judge their satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS) scoring system.

RESULTS

The age of the patients varied from 24 to 40 years (mean: 30.08±4.94 years). Only nine patients (36%) were males. Clinical assessment by two-blinded dermatologists showed statistically significant improvement in the combination (FMR+subcision) group (P=.009). Patient satisfaction was statistically significantly better in the combination group (P=.001). A darkening of skin phototype was associated with a decrease in patient's satisfaction VAS score (P=.07).

CONCLUSION

The combination of subcision and FMR is a safe and effective modality for mixed type acne scars. Additional randomized clinical study with long-term follow-up is necessary for further evaluation of FMR in combination with other procedures. The full trial protocol can be accessed in: http://www.irct.ir/searchresult.php?keyword=%20%20IRCT2016103130597N1&id=30597&number=1&field=a&prt=1&total=1&m=1. The clinical trial registration number is IRCT2016103130597N1.