A split-face comparison of a fractional microneedle radiofrequency device and fractional carbon dioxide laser therapy in acne patients.

BACKGROUND

A number of lasers and light-based devices have been reported as promising treatment options for acne vulgaris.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) device treatment compared to CO(2) fractional laser system (FS) for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

Twenty healthy subjects underwent full-face treatment for acne vulgaris with CO(2) FS and MRF device. For each subject, two passes of CO(2) FS with a pulse energy setting of 80 mJ and a density of 100 spots/cm(2) were used on one side, and two passes of MRF device with a intensity of 8, density of 25 MTZ/cm(2), and a depth of 1.5-2.5 mm were used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and were also photographed.

RESULTS

Most of the patients improved based on clinical and photographic assessments 3 months after the treatment. No significant differences in physician-measured parameters, patient ratings, or intraoperative pain ratings were found, although downtime was significantly longer for the CO(2) FS treated side.

CONCLUSIONS

MRF device and CO(2) FS can be used for acne vulgaris patients and MRF device is more convenient than CO(2) FS because of its short downtime.