BACKGROUND: Up to now rejuvenating treatment of the hands has been challenging and results often disappointing. AIMS: To determine whether hyaluronic acid (HA) microdroplet placement into the dorsal hands has an impact on skin physiology and clinical appearance and whether there is any difference between stabilized HA (S-HA) and nonstabilized HA (NS-HA). PATIENTS/ METHODS: The intra-individual comparison in 15 volunteers involved injection sessions at week 0, 4, and 8 with random assignment of left and right hand to either S-HA or NS-HA. Skin physiology parameters cutaneous elasticity, surface roughness, hydration, and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) were measured in vivo at weeks 0 (before treatment), 4 (before subsequent treatment), 12, and 24. Clinical hand assessment was carried out at weeks 0 and 12 by a blinded dermatologist. RESULTS: Intradermal injection of S-HA generated significant improvement in skin elasticity and surface roughness at week 12 compared to baseline. On the hands treated with NS-HA, there was a trend for improvement (not significant). While there was no significant difference in hydration and TEWL between both hands before treatment, at week 12 hands treated with S-HA displayed a significantly higher hydration level and lower TEWL compared to NS-HA treatment. Clinically S-HA proved to be significantly superior to NS-HA. At week 24 the observed effects started to return back toward baseline, with S-HA treatment still offering better results compared to the NS-HA. CONCLUSIONS: Skin revitalization with injectable HA can improve clinical appearance and skin physiology parameters on the back of the hands. It has been shown that S-HA has better effects when compared with NS-HA.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Up to now rejuvenating treatment of the hands has been challenging and results often disappointing. AIMS: To determine whether hyaluronic acid (HA) microdroplet placement into the dorsal hands has an impact on skin physiology and clinical appearance and whether there is any difference between stabilized HA (S-HA) and nonstabilized HA (NS-HA). PATIENTS/ METHODS: The intra-individual comparison in 15 volunteers involved injection sessions at week 0, 4, and 8 with random assignment of left and right hand to either S-HA or NS-HA. Skin physiology parameters cutaneous elasticity, surface roughness, hydration, and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) were measured in vivo at weeks 0 (before treatment), 4 (before subsequent treatment), 12, and 24. Clinical hand assessment was carried out at weeks 0 and 12 by a blinded dermatologist. RESULTS: Intradermal injection of S-HA generated significant improvement in skin elasticity and surface roughness at week 12 compared to baseline. On the hands treated with NS-HA, there was a trend for improvement (not significant). While there was no significant difference in hydration and TEWL between both hands before treatment, at week 12 hands treated with S-HA displayed a significantly higher hydration level and lower TEWL compared to NS-HA treatment. Clinically S-HA proved to be significantly superior to NS-HA. At week 24 the observed effects started to return back toward baseline, with S-HA treatment still offering better results compared to the NS-HA. CONCLUSIONS: Skin revitalization with injectable HA can improve clinical appearance and skin physiology parameters on the back of the hands. It has been shown that S-HA has better effects when compared with NS-HA.
Authors: Caitlin J Symonette; Aman Kaur Mann; Xiao Cherie Tan; Cornelia Tolg; Jenny Ma; Francisco Perera; Arjang Yazdani; Eva A Turley Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.411