Tyler Long1, Akhil Gupta2, Steven Ma1, Sylvia Hsu3. 1. Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, Florida. 2. Advanced Dermatology & Cosmetic Surgery, Margate, Florida. 3. Department of Dermatology, Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with noninvasive, nonenergy procedures for atrophic acne scars has shown promise. To date, there has not been a systematic review or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of this therapy. AIMS: To use meta-analysis to compare Goodman and Baron qualitative scores, patient satisfaction outcomes, and adverse effects in patients undergoing combination procedures with PRP, combination procedures without PRP, and noninvasive monotherapy without PRP in the treatment of patients with atrophic acne scars. PATIENTS/ METHODS: The Pubmed and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies published before May 1, 2019. PRISMA guidelines were utilized. Studies that compared the use of PRP in combination with a noninvasive procedure and therapies without PRP for the treatment of atrophic acne scars were included. Cochrane's handbook was utilized to assess the individual biases of the included studies. Publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 311 participants (153 whole-face participants and 158 split-face participants) were reviewed across eight included studies. Quantitative analysis of 241 participants across six included studies showed a statistically significant reduction in scar severity scores in favor of microneedling or subcision with PRP (P < .001). Combination therapy with intradermal or topical PRP was significantly more effective than monotherapy alone and combination therapy with an adjunct other than PRP (P < .001 and .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that microneedling or subcision with PRP produced statistically significant improvement in validated outcomes over microneedling or subcision alone.
BACKGROUND: The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with noninvasive, nonenergy procedures for atrophic acne scars has shown promise. To date, there has not been a systematic review or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of this therapy. AIMS: To use meta-analysis to compare Goodman and Baron qualitative scores, patient satisfaction outcomes, and adverse effects in patients undergoing combination procedures with PRP, combination procedures without PRP, and noninvasive monotherapy without PRP in the treatment of patients with atrophic acne scars. PATIENTS/ METHODS: The Pubmed and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies published before May 1, 2019. PRISMA guidelines were utilized. Studies that compared the use of PRP in combination with a noninvasive procedure and therapies without PRP for the treatment of atrophic acne scars were included. Cochrane's handbook was utilized to assess the individual biases of the included studies. Publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 311 participants (153 whole-face participants and 158 split-face participants) were reviewed across eight included studies. Quantitative analysis of 241 participants across six included studies showed a statistically significant reduction in scar severity scores in favor of microneedling or subcision with PRP (P < .001). Combination therapy with intradermal or topical PRP was significantly more effective than monotherapy alone and combination therapy with an adjunct other than PRP (P < .001 and .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that microneedling or subcision with PRP produced statistically significant improvement in validated outcomes over microneedling or subcision alone.