Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC · 2024
BIOFILLER VS PLATELET-RICH PLASMA MESOTHERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF PERI-ORBITAL HYPERPIGMENTATION.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sadiq Sakina, Bashir Uzma, Rizwan Ayesha, Anwar Ayesha, Rao Sibghatullah, Shahid Shyna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Peri orbital hyperpigmentation (POH) is a common presentation in dermatological outpatient departments and has multiple causes. Finding an appropriate treatment for POH can be challenging and requires a case-based approach. The objective of this research was to study the effect of Biofiller vs. PLATELET-RICH plasma meso-therapy in the treatment of Peri-orbital hyperpigmentation. Our hypothesis was "Biofillers are better than platelet-rich plasma therapy in the treatment of peri-orbital hyperpigmentation". It was a double-blinded randomized Control Trial (IRCT20230816059168N1) carried out in the Dermatology OPD of a tertiary care hospital in Rawalpindi over 4 months, i.e., 10.07.23 to 10.10.23.
METHODS: Forty-two patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the study after taking informed consent. Sampling was done by non-probability randomized sampling using the lottery method. 21 patients were treated with Bio fillers and another 21 with platelet-rich plasma therapy (PRP). Sessions with a 2-week interval were done in each case and results were analyzed by peri-orbital photo-metric pigmentation scale and clinical grading improvement scale rated by a physician. Patient satisfaction and complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: Statistically significant difference in results of Group A as compared to Group B, regarding improvement in photo numeric scale, evaluation of efficacy by a blinded dermatologist and patient satisfaction, i.e., p= 0.001, 0.014 and 0.001 respectively. In group A, pain was reported by 3 (14.3%), bruising by 1 (4.76%) and lumps by 2 (9.5%). PRP treated group had more side effects, i.e., 9 (42.8%) reported pain, 6 (28.6%) bruising and 4 (19%) more than one complaint (p-0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Biofillers are better than PRP in the treatment of POH.
METHODS: Forty-two patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the study after taking informed consent. Sampling was done by non-probability randomized sampling using the lottery method. 21 patients were treated with Bio fillers and another 21 with platelet-rich plasma therapy (PRP). Sessions with a 2-week interval were done in each case and results were analyzed by peri-orbital photo-metric pigmentation scale and clinical grading improvement scale rated by a physician. Patient satisfaction and complications were also recorded.
RESULTS: Statistically significant difference in results of Group A as compared to Group B, regarding improvement in photo numeric scale, evaluation of efficacy by a blinded dermatologist and patient satisfaction, i.e., p= 0.001, 0.014 and 0.001 respectively. In group A, pain was reported by 3 (14.3%), bruising by 1 (4.76%) and lumps by 2 (9.5%). PRP treated group had more side effects, i.e., 9 (42.8%) reported pain, 6 (28.6%) bruising and 4 (19%) more than one complaint (p-0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Biofillers are better than PRP in the treatment of POH.