Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2021
Comparison between 308-nm excimer light alone versus 308-nm excimer light and platelet-rich plasma in the treatment for localized vitiligo.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Elsaadany Ahmed Elsaeed, El-Khalawany Mohamed, Elshahid Ahmed Rashad, Seddeik Abdel-Hameed Ahmad Kamel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Monochromatic excimer light (MEL) is a safe and effective treatment for localized stable vitiligo. Previous reports of the combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) or excimer laser yielded conflicting results.
AIMS: This prospective, self-controlled, randomized, comparative study aimed to assess whether the addition of PRP to MEL therapy would be of an additive benefit in the treatment for localized stable vitiligo. Patients/Methods The current study included 36 patients with at least 2 more or less symmetrical patches of localized stable vitiligo (72 patches). For each patient, each of the 2 vitiligo patches was randomly assigned to receive either MEL therapy (twice weekly) with bi-weekly intradermal PRP (group A) or MEL therapy alone (group B) for a maximum of 4 months or till complete repigmentation. The degree of repigmentation was categorized as absent (0%), poor (1-25%), moderate (26-50%), good (51-75%), or excellent (>75%). Patients were asked about their level of satisfaction (not satisfied at all, partially satisfied, satisfied, or completely satisfied). Side effects were recorded, and follow-up for 3 months was done.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups regarding the degree of repigmentation, the patients' level of satisfaction, and the frequency of side effects (p = 0.504, 0.490, and 0.912, respectively). At the end of the follow-up period, recurrence was observed in only 3 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed no statistically significant difference between using MEL alone or with intradermal PRP in the treatment for localized stable vitiligo.
AIMS: This prospective, self-controlled, randomized, comparative study aimed to assess whether the addition of PRP to MEL therapy would be of an additive benefit in the treatment for localized stable vitiligo. Patients/Methods The current study included 36 patients with at least 2 more or less symmetrical patches of localized stable vitiligo (72 patches). For each patient, each of the 2 vitiligo patches was randomly assigned to receive either MEL therapy (twice weekly) with bi-weekly intradermal PRP (group A) or MEL therapy alone (group B) for a maximum of 4 months or till complete repigmentation. The degree of repigmentation was categorized as absent (0%), poor (1-25%), moderate (26-50%), good (51-75%), or excellent (>75%). Patients were asked about their level of satisfaction (not satisfied at all, partially satisfied, satisfied, or completely satisfied). Side effects were recorded, and follow-up for 3 months was done.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups regarding the degree of repigmentation, the patients' level of satisfaction, and the frequency of side effects (p = 0.504, 0.490, and 0.912, respectively). At the end of the follow-up period, recurrence was observed in only 3 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed no statistically significant difference between using MEL alone or with intradermal PRP in the treatment for localized stable vitiligo.