Bleomycin tattoo may be more effective than cryotherapy combined with intralesional triamcinolon injection in treatment of larger keloids and hypertrophic scars (size > 100 mm2).
Background
Microneedling has shown to have positive therapeutic effects in treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA); however, the best microneedling protocol is still controversial.
Aims
Investigating effect of microneedling with 2 different depths of penetration on promoting hair growth in patients with AGA.
Methods
Sixty patients, in the age of 18‐45 years old with moderate and severe AGA, were allocated into 3 groups of control: treatment with minoxidil 5% lotion; group A: treatment with minoxidil 5% lotion and biweekly microneedling with a depth of 1.2 mm and group B: treatment with minoxidil 5% lotion and biweekly microneedling with a depth of 0.6 mm during 12 weeks. Efficacy parameters including change of hair count and hair thickness from baseline and assessment of hair growth by patient and investigator were evaluated.
Results
Compared with the baseline, a significant increase in hair count and hair thickness was observed in all three groups after completion of the treatment course (P < .05). The mean rise in hair count (P = .017) and hair thickness (P = .007) was significantly greater in group B compared with control group. Investigator's evaluation of hair regrowth was significantly greater in group A (P = .04) and group B (P = .007) compared with control group.
Conclusion
Microneedling with a depth of 0.6 mm in combination with minoxidil is more effective than minoxidil monotherapy in patients with AGA in terms of hair count and hair thickness. This depth of penetration tended to be more beneficial than depth of 1.2 mm.
The combination of subcision and FMR is a safe and effective modality for mixed type acne scars. Additional randomized clinical study with long-term follow-up is necessary for further evaluation of FMR in combination with other procedures. The full trial protocol can be accessed in: http://www.irct.ir/searchresult.php?keyword=%20%20IRCT2016103130597N1&id=30597&number=1&field=a&prt=1&total=1&m=1. The clinical trial registration number is IRCT2016103130597N1.
Treatment of PAH with FMR as a non-invasive modality can be a safe option with positive therapeutic effects on HDSS without any long-lasting side effects.
Background:There is considerable evidence which suggests a possible pathogenetic role for Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) in acne vulgaris.Aim:The study was to determine S. aureus colonization and antibiotic susceptibility patterns in patients with acne and of healthy people.Materials and Methods:In the case-control study, a total of 324 people were screened for nasal carriage of S. aureus: 166 acne patients and 158 healthy persons. One control subject was individually matched to one case. Nasal swabs from anterior nares of individuals were cultured and identified as S. aureus. Antibiotic sensitivity was performed with recognized laboratory techniques.Results:S. aureus was detected in 21.7% of the subjects in acne, and in 26.6% of control groups. There was no statistical difference in colonization rates between two groups (P=0.3). In patient group, most of S. aureus isolates were resistant to doxicycline and tetracycline (P=0.001), and were more sensitive to rifampicin compared to other drugs. In control samples, the isolated demonstrated higher resistance to cotrimoxazole compared to patient samples (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups regarding resistance to rifampicin, vancomycin, methicillin, and oxacillin.Conclusion:It is still unclear whether S. aureus is actually a causal agent in the pathogenesis of acne. Based on microbiological data of both healthy and acne-affected persons, we propose that contribution of S. aureus in acne pathogenesis is controversial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.