Investigating the impact of added Profhilo mesogel to subcision versus subcision monotherapy in treating acne scars; a single‐blinded, split‐face randomized trial

• Published in: Journal of cosmetic dermatology Vol. 23; no. 6; pp. 1992 - 2000
• Main Authors: Dastgheib, Mani, Heidari, Sama, Azizipour, Arghavan, Kavyani, Mohammadreza, Lajevardi, Vahide, Ehsani, Amir Hooshang, Teimourpour, Amir, Daneshpazhooh, Maryam, Kashani, Mansour Nassiri, Balighi, Kamran
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.06.2024
• Subjects: acne scar; Acne Vulgaris - complications; Adolescent; Adult; Cicatrix - etiology; Cicatrix - therapy; Combined Modality Therapy - methods; Cosmetic Techniques - adverse effects; Cosmetic Techniques - instrumentation; Dermal Fillers - administration & dosage; Dermal Fillers - adverse effects; Face; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid - administration & dosage; Male; mesogel fillers; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Profhilo; Single-Blind Method; subcision; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult; Profhilo; acne scar; mesogel fillers; subcision
• ISSN: 1473-2130; 1473-2165; 1473-2165
• DOI: 10.1111/jocd.16258

Background Acne scar is an inflammatory condition, which commonly occurs in patients with acne vulgaris, especially in adults. Mesogels have been reported effective in improving atrophic acne scars. Aims We investigated the efficacy of adding Profhilo (a hyaluronic acid‐based filler) to subcision as a new treatment method. Methods Twelve patients aged 18–45 years with atrophic acne scars on both sides of the face participated in this single‐blinded, split‐face, randomized controlled trial. Each side of the face was randomly assigned to one of the treatment methods, including subcision alone and subcision + Profhilo. Patients in the Profhilo arm received mesogel (1 cc) in addition to the subcision procedure. Both methods were carried out two times at 1‐month intervals. Assessments were done based on the sonographic depth of scars, and two blinded observers examined photographs at baseline and 3 months after the final session and the results were reported based on an exclusively made formula as the total score. The Global Improvement Scale and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (for patient satisfaction) were also used. Results The VAS score of patient satisfaction was statistically significant in the Profhilo arm, with a mean improvement of 528.08 and 219.06 in the subcision arm (p = 0.02). No significant difference was seen in total acne scar reduction comparing the two methods (29.74 in the Profhilo arm and 22.27 in the subcision arm, p = 0.56). Sonographic depth reduction was also non‐significant, with a mean of 29.21 in the Profhilo arm and 28.53 in the subcision arm (p = 0.4). The mean global improvement was reported as four in both arms, and no statistical significance was observed (p = 0.89). The best response to treatment belonged to the rolling subtype in both methods (p = 0.029 for the Profhilo arm and p = 0.001 for the subcision arm). Conclusion Despite no significant difference between the methods, Profhilo is more effective due to a higher satisfaction rate and better physiologic effects.