| Literature DB >> 30618527 |
Tomasz Iwanowski1, Piotr Szlązak1, Alicja Rustowska2, Małgorzata Sokołowska-Wojdyło3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are many surgical methods for vitiligo treatment that have been used for over 30 years. Suction blister epidermal grafting (SBEG) is considered one of the simplest and most effective of them. AIM: To determine how effective suction blister grafts with concomitant phototherapy are in vitiligo treatment.Entities:
Keywords: PUVA; UVB 311 nm; planimetry; repigmentation; suction blister; vitiligo
Year: 2018 PMID: 30618527 PMCID: PMC6320492 DOI: 10.5114/pdia.2017.71257
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Postepy Dermatol Alergol ISSN: 1642-395X Impact factor: 1.837
List of all patients
| Patient number | Gender | Age | Vitiligous area subjected to SBEG | Phototherapy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 39 | Hand – 1 area | UVB 311 nm |
| 2 | Female | 41 | Elbow – 2 areas | UVB 311 nm |
| 3 | Female | 42 | Neck – 1 area | UVB 311 nm |
| 4 | Female | 48 | Face, neck – 2 areas | UVB 311 nm |
| 5 | Female | 37 | Calf – 1 area | UVB 311 nm |
| 6 | Female | 29 | Back – 1 area | UVB 311 nm |
| 7 | Female | 31 | Hand – 3 areas | PUVA |
| 8 | Female | 41 | Back – 1 area | PUVA |
| 9 | Female | 23 | Foot – 1 area | PUVA |
| 10 | Female | 40 | Hand – 1 area | PUVA |
Figure 1A – Vacuum extractor apparatus, B – suction blisters in the donor site and transparent blister forming device, C – bullae in the recipient site, D – suction blisters placed on the recipient site
Response to treatment after 3 and 6 months
| Patient number | Recipient vitiligous area surface before SBEG (A) [mm2] | Recipient area vitiligous surface 3 months after SBEG (B) [mm2] | Recipient area vitiligous surface 6 months after SBEG (C) [mm2] | A–B [mm2] (and % of repigmentation area) | A–C [mm2] (and % of repigmentation area) | B–C [mm2] (and % of repigmentation area) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 540 | 207 | 105 | 333 (52) | 435 (81) | 102 (51) |
| 2.1 | 262 | 169 | 60 | 93 (36) | 202 (77) | 109 (65) |
| 2.2 | 165 | 143 | 103 | 22 (13) | 62 (38) | 40 (28) |
| 3 | 405 | 293 | 0 | 112 (28) | 405 (100) | 293 (100) |
| 4.1 | 764 | 270 | 40 | 494 (65) | 724 (95) | 230 (85) |
| 4.2 | 4642 | 1258 | 183 | 3384 (73) | 4459 (96) | 1075 (85) |
| 5 | 941 | 226 | 118 | 715 (76) | 823 (88) | 108 (48) |
| 6 | 820 | 432 | 152 | 388 (48) | 668 (82) | 280 (65) |
| 7.1 | 253 | 149 | 59 | 104 (41) | 194 (77) | 90 (60) |
| 7.2 | 384 | 212 | 164 | 172 (45) | 220 (57) | 48 (23) |
| 7.3 | 144 | 81 | 70 | 63 (44) | 74 (51) | 11 (14) |
| 8 | 1695 | 573 | 215 | 1122 (67) | 1480 (88) | 358 (63) |
| 9 | 2685 | 749 | 265 | 1936 (72) | 2420 (90) | 484 (65) |
| 10 | 209 | 126 | 133 | 83 (40) | 76 (35) | –7 (–5) |
Figure 2A – Patient 4, area 2 (neck) – before SBEG, B – patient 4, area 2 (neck) – 6 months after SBEG (after transferring 40 suction blisters)
Comparison of repigmentation rate in Maleki et al. study vs. our patients
| Follow-up visit [months] | Response to treatment | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild | Moderate | Good | Complete | |||||
| Maleki | Our study | Maleki | Our study | Maleki | Our study | Maleki | Our study | |
| 3 | 0% | 57% | 20% | 21% | 20% | 22% | 60% | 0% |
| 6 | 0% | 36% | 20% | 43% | 10% | 14% | 70% | 7% |