BACKGROUND AND AIM: A comprehensive study comparing two different modalities, Nokor needle subcision (NNS) and blunt cannula subcision (BCS), for treatment of acne scars, has not been reported previously. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on patient's and doctor's satisfaction measures, in addition to the late complications 3 months postsubcision. METHOD OF INTERVENTION: Patients had 18-65 years old, with acne scars on both malar sides. They were treated at one malar side with NNS and with BCS at another side. They were monitored during the first week, at one and 3 months postintervention. Patient's and two dermatologist's satisfactions were compared during 3 months, for each modality and between modalities. RESULTS: From 34 patients, 29.4%, 55.9%, and 14.7% had mild, moderate, and severe acne scars, respectively. Ecchymosis, nodule formation post-NNS, and edema after BCS were the complications. Patients were satisfied with BCS during 3-month monitoring (P = .021), but not with NNS (P = .353). Physician-1 was satisfied from the outcome of both BCS and NNS procedures (P = .044 and .006, respectively). However, physician-2 was only satisfied with NNS at the month 3 than the month 1 (P = .002). All patients and physicians were significantly more satisfied with BCS than NNS (P = .000). Anyway, at the month 3, physician-2 had no significant different points of view about applied methods (P = .25). DISCUSSION: Considering the complications and satisfaction rates, BCS was more efficient than NNS for acne scar treatment. Then, we suggest BCS as a good replacement for NNS.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: A comprehensive study comparing two different modalities, Nokor needle subcision (NNS) and blunt cannula subcision (BCS), for treatment of acne scars, has not been reported previously. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on patient's and doctor's satisfaction measures, in addition to the late complications 3 months postsubcision. METHOD OF INTERVENTION: Patients had 18-65 years old, with acne scars on both malar sides. They were treated at one malar side with NNS and with BCS at another side. They were monitored during the first week, at one and 3 months postintervention. Patient's and two dermatologist's satisfactions were compared during 3 months, for each modality and between modalities. RESULTS: From 34 patients, 29.4%, 55.9%, and 14.7% had mild, moderate, and severe acne scars, respectively. Ecchymosis, nodule formation post-NNS, and edema after BCS were the complications. Patients were satisfied with BCS during 3-month monitoring (P = .021), but not with NNS (P = .353). Physician-1 was satisfied from the outcome of both BCS and NNS procedures (P = .044 and .006, respectively). However, physician-2 was only satisfied with NNS at the month 3 than the month 1 (P = .002). All patients and physicians were significantly more satisfied with BCS than NNS (P = .000). Anyway, at the month 3, physician-2 had no significant different points of view about applied methods (P = .25). DISCUSSION: Considering the complications and satisfaction rates, BCS was more efficient than NNS for acne scar treatment. Then, we suggest BCS as a good replacement for NNS.