Introduction The overall effects of Carboxytherapy, defined as the administration of carbon dioxide, have been studied for many years. It has been suggested that by improving oxygenation, interacting with the tissue perfusion regulators, and disrupting the adipose cell membranes, the method can lead to notable improvements in different esthetic and pathological conditions. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the available studies evaluating the potential benefits of carboxytherapy in dermatological conditions and how it objectively stands against scientific scrutiny. Methods We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases, including the studies exploring the method's efficacy in managing any dermatological condition. Results A total 27 of studies were identified (with a pooled sample of over 700 cases), most of which were clinical trials. Facial wrinkles, periorbital hyperpigmentation, skin laxity deficiency, scars, striae distensae, localized lipolysis and cellulite, alopecia, chronic diabetic wounds, and psoriatic plaques comprised the package of the dermatological conditions that were studied. Except for a few studies, the method mainly demonstrated significant improvements on all of the mentioned conditions. The inter‐ and post‐operational adverse events were mild and transient, including erythema, pain, crepitus, and ecchymoses. Discussion Carboxytherapy can provide those practicing in the field with sustainably favorable results. However, the numbers of cases on whom the fat‐reducing capabilities of the method were studied and experienced varying degrees of recurrence caught our eye. In addition, we observed a notable disparity between the outcome measures utilized in the studies. The modest sample size in each condition also added to the injury, as the conditions on which the method was evaluated are pretty common in the general population. Therefore, for a definite conclusion, more randomized controlled trials with the shortcomings mentioned well addressed need to be conducted.

Background COVID‐19 vaccines are currently the most effective interventions in controlling and preventing severe disease progression. Dermatologic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccinations may be rare among clinical trial participants. However, since global mass vaccination became a reality, these adverse effects may become more widespread, and different skin reactions would arise. Objective To systematically review the cutaneous adverse reactions in cases subject to vaccines for COVID‐19. Methods We searched the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Embase databases, identifying the relevant records and including the eligible observational ones. After assessing the methodological quality of the included studies, we qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized the data regarding the cutaneous side effects experienced by those in the studies' population. Results Overall, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, with the majority being cross‐sectional. We found that pain, erythema, and swelling were the most common local side effects, while different types of rashes, urticaria, and angioedema were the most non‐local. Few cases also reported experiencing flare‐ups of their underlying diseases or developing newly‐onset diseases of various etiologies. Our meta‐analyses also found that while viral vector‐based vaccines are, though insignificantly, safer in injection site complaints, individuals who received mRNA vaccines developed significantly fewer non‐local cutaneous adverse events. Discussion Cutaneous reactions to the COVID‐19 vaccines are similar to common cutaneous drug eruptions and COVID‐19 cutaneous manifestations. However, we believe that further high‐quality research is needed to assess better how and why cutaneous reactions occur in different vaccines.

With the investigation of the efficacy of laser therapy in primary localized amyloidosis(PLCA) only recently starting to materialize, we aimed to review the currently available studies of laser therapy in the management of the disease. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ProQuest online databases with a specified search strategy, assessed the quality of each study, and then extracted the eligible data. Five RCTs(randomized controlled trials), one non-randomized controlled trial, three case series, and nine case reports(18 in total) were included. Overall, carbon dioxide (CO2), neodymium-doped:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), pulsed dye (PDL), Er (Erbium):YAG, and yttrium/ erbium fiber were the studied lasers. One hundred fifty-five cases in total underwent laser therapy, with CO2 being the most frequent laser. Almost all studies demonstrated significantly desirable outcomes, while only mild and transient side effects were noted. Even though the studies' results were significant, we noticed that implementing a consistent methodology and a standardized objective assessment method was missing. Therefore, we recommend that future studies be conducted with less heterogeneous data for a more definite conclusion.

Objective: The scar's appearance and psychological burden are the most esthetically challenging issues in acne vulgaris. This study investigated the effectiveness and safety profile of combined radiofrequency-assisted subcision, which, even though effective on both Icepeak and Rolling subtypes, is only mildly effective on boxcar lesions, and polycaprolactone-based dermal filler with collagen stimulation potency in managing atrophic postacne scars. Methods:Our quasi-experimental single-arm study, after the inclusion of 10 cases over the age of 18 with moderate to severe mixed atrophic facial acne scarring, was carried out in two 3-month separate sessions, during and after the intended intervention of which the experienced lesion improvements and also adverse events were documented. Moreover, all cases were followed for 3 months after the last session, evaluating the differences in the mentioned outcomes. Results:We found the combined intervention to be highly effective in improving the intended outcomes, with the total number of acne lesions (p-value < 0.001), along with the total number of Ice peak (p-value = 0.002), Rolling (p-value < 0.001), and boxcar (p-value = 0.023) lesions demonstrating statistically significant changes. Conclusion:Radiofrequency-assisted subcision combined with polycaprolactonebased dermal fillers can be an effective intervention in managing postacne scars.However, we recommend that randomized clinical trials with larger sample sizes be carried out for a more precise conclusion.

Purpose: Following COVID-19 infection a rising count of rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis is observed, requiring orbital exenteration, a disabling lifetime affecting surgery. One of the potential interventions for globe salvage in these patients is retrobulbar injections of amphotericin B. This study was conducted to review protocols, outcomes, and side effects of retrobulbar injection of amphotericin B in patients with COVID-19 associated rhino-orbito-cerebral mucormycosis (CAM). Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched using a comprehensive string of relevant keywords. All English studies with the confirmed diagnosis of CAM infection were included. We excluded all studies in which retrobulbar injection of amphotericin B was not implemented in any of the patients or there was a lack of clarified and detailed data about this procedure among participants. Results: A total of 647 cases had a history of retrobulbar injection(s) of amphotericin B in 13 reviewed studies with 3,132 subjects of CAM. The most common protocol was the retrobulbar injection of 1 ml of 3.5 mg/ml liposomal amphotericin B for 3 doses daily or on alternate days. We discerned that the globe salvage rate was 95.0% in eyes with a history of retrobulbar injection(s). The total rate of orbital exenteration was 14.9%, regardless of the history of retrobulbar injection of the drug. Other outcomes of this intervention were vision salvage and reduced major ophthalmic complaints, including pain, swelling, chemosis, ptosis, and ophthalmoplegia. The side effects of this intervention were not serious, and most of them were transient. They included swelling at the injection site, restriction of ocular motilities, exacerbation of orbital inflammation, and even intensification of visual impairment in a few cases. Conclusions: Retrobulbar injection of amphotericin B should be considered a nearly safe and protective intervention against orbital exenteration in patients with CAM. It may also be effective in saving vision. Since the effectiveness of orbital exenteration in the survival of patients is not ascertained, retrobulbar injections can be considered an alternative intervention.