| Literature DB >> 26788052 |
R M Robati1, F Abdollahimajd1, A M Robati2.
Abstract
Background. A prominent nasolabial fold (NLF) is a cosmetic problem. Currently, numerous therapeutic modalities are available for pronounced NLFs with variable efficacy. Objective. To determine the efficacy and safety of subcision using a hypodermic needle for the correction of the prominent NLFs and its effect on skin elasticity. Methods. Sixteen patients with prominent NLFs underwent subcision. The investigators' assessment of improvement and the patients' satisfaction were both recorded 1 and 6 months after the procedure. Also, we evaluate the skin elasticity of NLFs before and after the treatment using a sensitive biometrologic device with the measurement of cutaneous resonance running time (CRRT). Results. Thirteen (81.25%) patients showed a moderate improvement at 1st month and 13 (81.25%) patients had at least a mild improvement at 6th month. There was no persistent side effect lasting more than a few days. Mean CRRT at 1 and 6 months after the treatment was significantly higher compared to the baseline. Conclusion. Subcision may be considered effective for the correction of pronounced NLFs. However, further controlled studies with larger sample size are necessary to assess the efficacy of this technique in particular with use of more objective assessment of skin biometric characteristics. This trial is registered with IRCT201108097270N1 (registered on January 27, 2012).Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26788052 PMCID: PMC4695664 DOI: 10.1155/2015/976153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dermatol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6113
Figure 1The diagrams provided by Reviscometer RVM 600 probe after measurement of CRRT.
Baseline demographics and outcomes of the subcision procedure in patients.
|
| Sex/age | Dx. duration | WSRS (0) | WSRS 1 m | WSRS 6 m | CRRT 0 | CRRT 1 m | CRRT 6 m | Complication 1 wk | Complication 1, 6 m | Satis. 1 m | Satis. 6 m | Improve. % | Improve. | Improve. % | Improve. degree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | f/42 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1328 | 1835.2 | 1799 | Bruising | No | Full | Relative | 20 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
| 2 | f/56 | 25 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1427 | 1983 | 1891 | Bruising | No | Full | Relative | 70 | 3 | 30 | 3 |
| 3 | f/59 | 30 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 460 | 657.25 | 623.2 | No | No | Full | Relative | 60 | 3 | 30 | 3 |
| 4 | f/38 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 589 | 949 | 846.5 | No | No | Full | Relative | 40 | 3 | 20 | 2 |
| 5 | f/33 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 920 | 950 | 895.5 | No | No | Relative | No | 20 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| 6 | f/36 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2141.2 | 2200 | 2481.5 | Bruising | No | Full | Full | 50 | 3 | 20 | 2 |
| 7 | f/60 | 25 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 949.3 | 958.75 | 952.25 | No | No | Full | Relative | 40 | 3 | 20 | 2 |
| 8 | f/35 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1406.8 | 1561.8 | 1410 | No | No | Relative | Relative | 50 | 3 | 20 | 2 |
| 9 | f/52 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 560 | 890 | 818 | Bruising | No | Full | Relative | 50 | 3 | 30 | 3 |
| 10 | f/36 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 194.2 | 2677 | 2594 | No | No | Full | Full | 30 | 3 | 15 | 2 |
| 11 | f/35 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1206 | 1430 | 1291 | No | No | Full | No | 25 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| 12 | f/60 | 34 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 460 | 589 | 480 | Bruising | No | Relative | Relative | 30 | 3 | 10 | 2 |
| 13 | f/51 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 949 | 1251 | 1631 | No | No | Full | Full | 70 | 3 | 40 | 3 |
| 14 | f/42 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1305 | 1480 | 1447 | No | No | Full | Relative | 40 | 3 | 10 | 2 |
| 15 | f/41 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1376 | 1510 | 1626.2 | No | No | Full | Full | 70 | 3 | 30 | 3 |
| 16 | f/46 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 849 | 983.75 | 972.5 | No | No | Relative | No | 20 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
N, number; Dx., disease; WSRS (0), Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (base); m, month; CRRT, cutaneous resonance running time; wk, week; satis., satisfaction; improve., improvement.
WSRS: 1 = absent (no visible fold), 2 = mild (shallow fold), 3 = moderate (not visible when stretched), 4 = severe (prominent, long, and deep fold), and 5 = extreme (extremely deep and long folds detrimental to facial appearance).
Improvement degree (evaluated by investigators and also one dermatologist): 1 = no response: <10%; 2 = mild response: 10–25%; 3 = moderate response: 26–75%; and 4 = excellent response: >75%.
The grades of improvement in WSRS (compared to baseline) at one month and 6 months after the beginning of the procedure.
| WSRS improvement | After 1 month | After 6 months |
|---|---|---|
| (compare to baseline) | ||
| No change | 1 (6.25%) | 7 (43.75%) |
| At least 1 grade | 15 (93.75%) | 9 (56.25%) |
| 2 grades or greater | 2 (12.5%) | 0 |
WSRS, Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale.
WSRS: 1 = absent (no visible fold), 2 = mild (shallow fold), 3 = moderate (not visible when stretched), 4 = severe (prominent, long, and deep fold), and 5 = extreme (extremely deep and long folds detrimental to facial appearance).
Improvement degree (compared to baseline) at one month and 6 months after the beginning of the procedure.
| Improvement degree | After 1 month | After 6 months |
|---|---|---|
| (compared to baseline) | ||
| No response | 0 (0) | 3 (18.75%) |
| At least a mild response | 3 (18.75%) | 8 (50%) |
| A moderate response or greater | 13 (81.25%) | 5 (31.25%) |
Improvement degree (evaluated by investigators and also one dermatologist): 1 = no response: <10%; 2 = mild response: 10–25%; 3 = moderate response: 26–75%; and 4 = excellent response: >75%.
Figure 2The considerable improvement of nasolabial folds after subcision; (a) before and (b) immediately after treatment (>75% improvement), (c) one month (50–75% improvement) and (d) three months after subcision (25–50% improvement), and (e) six months after treatment (≈25% improvement especially in upper portion of NLFs). No depression at the needle insertion points was seen.
Figure 3Marked improvement of nasolabial folds after subcision: (a) before and (b) immediately after treatment (>75% improvement), (c) one month (50–75% improvement) and (d) three months after subcision (25–50% improvement), and (e) six months after procedure (≈25% improvement). No depression at the needle insertion points was seen.