Striae; Albicantes
Conditions
Keywords
Stria alba, Fractional CO2, Fractional carbon dioxide laser 00, Low level light therapy, Striae atrophicae, Infra red diode laser, 808 nm, 915 nm, 10600 nm
Brief summary
Stria alba (aka white or atrophic stretch marks) is a very common dermatologic condition that causes major psychological distress to those afflicted. We study the effect of low level light therapy using infra red diode 808/915 nm laser in comparison to fractional CO2 alone and combined both therapies.
Detailed description
All patients will be subjected to the following: * Written informed consent. * Detailed history and clinical evaluation. The treated areas will be photographed (in standardized settings of light and position) and measured in order to allow comparison and assessment of striae improvement following treatment. Patients will be allocated according to randomization into one of 3 arms: Arm A will be treated by fractional CO2 laser. Arm B will be treated by low level light therapy (LLLT). Arm C will be treated with a combination of fractional CO2 laser and LLLT. Digital photographs will be taken for each patient, at the baseline and 1 and 3 months after last session and the width of the widest striae in each patient will be measured at the same time. Patients will be assessed before and after treatment by one unblinded and 2 blinded investigators to measure the clinical improvement on a 4-point scale by comparing the photographs. The criteria for evaluation using a quartile grading scale will be as follows; 0=no improvement, 1=mild improvement (\<25%), 2=moderate improvement (26% - 50%), 3=good improvement (51% -75%), 4=excellent improvement (\>76%). In addition, a patient satisfaction score will be rated using the following scale; 0=not satisfied, 1=slightly satisfied, 2= satisfied, 3=very satisfied, 4=extremely satisfied as well as patients' satisfaction questionnaire (Yang and Lee; 2011).
Interventions
DEVICELow level light therapy
Patients will be offered 8 sessions of photobiomodulation using HPL Pagani Diode 808/915nm LLLT 3.2W (Fimad Elettromedicali SRL®, Catanzaro, Italy) with the parameters adjusted individually according to the surface area to be treated. Optimum dose is 10 joules/cubic centimeters. The patients will take 2 to3 sessions / week.
DEVICEFractional CO2
Patients will be offered 2 sessions of fractional carbon dioxide laser on a 4 weeks interval. Topical anesthesia with pridocaine cream will be applied under occlusion for 30 - 60 minutes before the session. * Please update to the proper apparatus and parameters DEXA SmartXide DOT Fractional CO2 laser system 10600 nm (DEKA®, Florence, Italy) will be used with the following parameters adjusted individually to patients': power of 15-20 W, dwell time of 500-800 μs, spacing of 200-500 μm, and stack 2.
DEVICECombined fractional CO2 laser and low level light therapy
Combined treatment of both modalities (fractionational CO2 laser and low level light therapy). Please describe more....
Sponsors
Kasr El Aini Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Subjects, above the age of 18 years old, with stria alba. * Both genders.
Exclusion criteria
* Pregnant or lactating females. * Subjects who were treated with any interventional procedure (lasers, radiofrequency, dermabrasion, microdermabrasion, or chemical peeling) within 6 months prior to the study. * Subjects who applied topical corticosteroids, retinoid, vitamin C, or vitamin E within 3 months prior to the study. * Subjects who orally took retinoids or corticosteroids within 3 months. * Subjects who had a history of hypertrophic scar, keloid or immunosuppression or cancer.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by patient global assessment at month 3 (End of study) | 3 months | Patients will be assessed before and after treatment by one unblinded and one blinded investigators to measure the clinical improvement on a 4-point scale by comparing the photographs. The criteria for evaluation using a quartile grading scale will be as follows; 0=no improvement, 1=mild improvement (\<25%), 2=moderate improvement (26% - 50%), 3=good improvement (51% -75%), 4=excellent improvement (\>76%). |
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by patient satisfaction score at month 3 (End of study) | 3 months | Patient satisfaction score will be rated using the following scale; 0=not satisfied, 1=slightly satisfied, 2= satisfied, 3=very satisfied, 4=extremely satisfied as well as patients' satisfaction questionnaire |
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by physician global assessment at month 3 (End of study) | 3 months | Patients will be assessed before and after treatment by one unblinded and one blinded investigators to measure the clinical improvement on a 4-point scale by comparing the photographs. The criteria for evaluation using a quartile grading scale will be as follows; 0=no improvement, 1=mild improvement (\<25%), 2=moderate improvement (26% - 50%), 3=good improvement (51% -75%), 4=excellent improvement (\>76%). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Comparative tolerability of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by the incidence of side effects (edema, pain, erythema, itching, peeling) | 3 months | Percentage of incidence of side effects (edema, pain, erythema, itching, start of peeling) in all patients |
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by physician global assessment at month 1 | 1 month | Patients will be assessed before and after treatment by one unblinded and one blinded investigators to measure the clinical improvement on a 4-point scale by comparing the photographs. The criteria for evaluation using a quartile grading scale will be as follows; 0=no improvement, 1=mild improvement (\<25%), 2=moderate improvement (26% - 50%), 3=good improvement (51% -75%), 4=excellent improvement (\>76%). |
| Comparative tolerability of the fractional CO2 versus combined fractional and LLLT as regards duration of side effects in days after each laser session (edema, pain, erythema, itching, peeling) | 3 months | Comparative tolerability of the fractional CO2 versus combined fractional and LLLT as regards duration of side effects in days after each laser session (edema, pain, erythema, itching, peeling) |
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by patient global assessment at month 1 | 1 month | Patients will be assessed before and after treatment by one unblinded and one blinded investigators to measure the clinical improvement on a 4-point scale by comparing the photographs. The criteria for evaluation using a quartile grading scale will be as follows; 0=no improvement, 1=mild improvement (\<25%), 2=moderate improvement (26% - 50%), 3=good improvement (51% -75%), 4=excellent improvement (\>76%). |
| Comparative effectiveness of the 3 intervention groups as assessed by patient satisfaction score at month 1 | 1 month | Patient satisfaction score will be rated using the following scale; 0=not satisfied, 1=slightly satisfied, 2= satisfied, 3=very satisfied, 4=extremely satisfied as well as patients' satisfaction questionnaire |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed