Reflectance confocal microscopy for the evaluation of sensitive skin

• Published in: Skin research and technology Vol. 23; no. 2; pp. 227 - 234
• Main Authors: Ma, Y.‐F., Yuan, C., Jiang, W.‐C., Wang, X.‐L., Humbert, P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.05.2017
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Dermoscopy - methods; Female; honeycomb pattern; Humans; Microscopy, Confocal - methods; Microscopy, Interference - methods; Middle Aged; Observer Variation; reflectance confocal microscopy; Reproducibility of Results; sensitive skin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skin - pathology; Skin Diseases - pathology; spongiform edema; Young Adult; reflectance confocal microscopy; sensitive skin; spongiform edema; honeycomb pattern
• ISSN: 0909-752X; 1600-0846
• DOI: 10.1111/srt.12327

Background Nowadays, the diagnosis for sensitive skin relies on subjective assessment or on the combination of subjective and objective evaluation. No quantitative evaluation is available. It could be expected that confocal microscopy imaging could be of interest to better define the condition. Methods Total 166 healthy female subjects were recruited in this study. Firstly, all subjects completed the sensitive questionnaire. Then, the cutaneous structures were measured by the reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) on the face and fossa cubitalia. The lactic acid sting test was conducted finally. According to the results of self‐perception sensitive skin questionnaire and lactic acid stinging test to evaluate facial skin sensitivity the both positive subjects were regarded as sensitive skin group and both negative group as healthy control group. Result The results of RCM indicating that the proportion of ‘disarranged honeycomb pattern’ and ‘spongiform edema’ in the sensitive group and healthy control group were statistically different (P < 0.05), respectively; The following report ‘damaged dermal papilla rings’ was not a distinctive pattern, with no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). The epidermal thickness was 38.88 ± 6.81 μm, healthy control group was 40.31 ± 9.37 μm in, respectively, sensitive skin group and healthy control group, there was no significant statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The honeycomb structure depth of sensitive group was 20.57 ± 4.86 μm. It was for 23.27 ± 6.38 μm, healthy control group the difference being statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion Based on the RCM results, ‘epidermal honeycomb structure’ and ‘spongiform edema’ may be used as new skin signs of RCM evaluation of sensitive skin effectively. Indeed, sensitive skin honeycomb structure depth was thinner compared with healthy control group. Such a specific pattern has good clinical and monitoring value for the further exploration. RCM could provide new data and patterns for the evaluation of sensitive skin.