الفهرس 
Introduction
Acne scarsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 127 |  |  |
| | | from | 127 | | |
Abstract
This study was carried out at the department of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology at Assiut University Hospital, Egypt to evaluate and compare the efficacy of microneedling and PRP in treatment of post acne scars. Thirty adult facial post acne scar patients were randomly recruited from the outpatient clinics of the department of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology at Assiut University Hospital. The total 30 patients who completed the study were divided into two groups: A and Bgroup A (15 patients) on which microneedling by dermapen were performed on the left side of their face followed by topical application of PRP while on the right side of their face microneedling by dermapen alone was performed. group B: (15 patients) on which microneedling by dermapen was performed on the left side of their face followed by topical application of PRP while on the right side of their face PRP alone was injected intradermally using insulin syringes.Patients underwent 4 sessions with 3 weeks interval. The response to treatment was assessed with photographs taken to the patients before treatment and 3 weeks after the last session by two blinded dermatologists. In addition qualitative Goodman and Baron scale and ECCA score were done at the baseline and 3 weeks after the last session. The participating patients included 19 females and 11 males with age range from 17 to 35 years with mean age 25.60 ± 4.84 for group A and 23.53 ± 5.24 for group B. Fitzpatrick skin phototype of the patients were III, IV and V and the duration of scars ranged from 4 to 19 years in group A with a mean of 9.60 ± 4.63 while in group B ranged from 2 to 18 years with a mean of 7.93 ± 4.82. group ARegarding photo evaluation, although the percentages of excellent improvement was higher 33.3% on the left side (treated with dermapen with PRP) compared to 20% on the right side (treated with dermapen only) yet it didn’t reach a statistical significant level. Evaluation of the degree of improvement in post acne scar morphology using Goodman and Baron scale after treatment revealed that in group A, both sides (right and left) showed improvement in the grades of scars after treatment but didn’t reach a statistically significant level. There was better improvement on the left side compared to the right side but didn’t reach a statistically significant level. There was a statistically significant decrease in the total number of post acne scars on both sides of the face after treatment in group A using the quantitative ECCA scale (p-level = 0.001on both sides). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the left and right sides. Regarding icepick scars, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of icepick scars on both sides of the face after treatment in group A (p-level = 0.002 on the right side and 0.003 on the left side). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the left and right sides. Regarding rolling scars, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of rolling scars on both sides of the face after treatment in group A (p-level= 0.001 on both sides). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the left and right sides. Both sides showed same results regarding boxcar scars and there was no statistically significant difference between them. Thus concluding that treatment using microneedling with PRP and treatment using microneedling alone had similar results. Regarding patient satisfaction, there was no statistically significant difference between the right & left sides of group A. As regards adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference in adverse effects between both sides of group A. group B Regarding photo evaluation, the percentages of excellent and marked improvement was higher 66.7% on the left side (treated with dermapen with PRP) compared to 13.3% on the right side (treated with intradermal PRP injection) and reached statistical significance (P-level = 0.006) Evaluation of the degree of improvement in post acne scar morphology using Goodman and Baron scale after treatment revealed that in group B ,both sides (right and left) showed improvement in the grades of scars after treatment but didn’t reach a statistically significant level. There was better improvement on the left side compared to the right side but didn’t reach a statistically significant level. There was a statistically significant decrease in the total number of post acne scars on both sides of the face after treatment in group B using the quantitative ECCA scale (p-level= 0.009 on the right side and 0.001 on the left side). Also there was a statistically significant decrease in the total number of post acne scars on the left side compared to the right side (p-level = 0.001). Regarding icepick scars, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of icepick scars on both sides of the face after treatment in group B (p-level = 0.025 on the right side and 0.000 on the left side). Also, there was a statistical significant decrease in the number of icepick scars on the left side compared to the right side (p-level = 0.002). Regarding rolling scars, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of rolling scars on the left side of the face after treatment in group B (p-level = 0.000) while there was insignificant decrease after treatment on the right side. Also, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of rolling scars on the left side compared to the right side (p-level = 0.002). Both sides showed similar results regarding boxcar scars and there was no statistically significant difference between them. Thus concluding that treatment using microneedling with PRP is much better than treatment using intradermal PRP injection. Regarding patient satisfaction in group B, there was a statistically significant decrease in the degree of satisfaction in the right side compared to the left side (p-level =0.002). As regards adverse effects, there was no statistically significant difference in adverse effects between both sides of both groups.