Skip to content

Poly-L-Lactic Acid Threads Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma for Post-Traumatic Atrophic Scars

A Comparative Study of Poly-L-Lactic Acid Threads Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma, Both Combined With Subcision, in the Treatment of Post-Traumatic Atrophic Scars

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07775092
Acronym
PLLA-PRP PTAS
Enrollment
48
Registered
2026-08-20
Start date
2023-02-06
Completion date
2024-08-31
Last updated
2026-08-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Acne Atrophica, PRP

Keywords

acne scars, PRP, subscision, threads

Brief summary

This study compares the efficacy and safety of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) threads versus platelet-rich plasma (PRP), both combined with subcision, in the treatment of post-traumatic atrophic scars. Patients with post-traumatic atrophic scars were allocated to either a single session of subcision followed by PLLA thread insertion or four monthly sessions of subcision combined with PRP injection. Clinical improvement, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and histopathological changes were assessed during a 3-month follow-up period.

Detailed description

Post-traumatic atrophic scars result from abnormal healing following skin injury and may cause significant cosmetic and functional impairment. Subcision releases the fibrous bands tethering the scar to deeper tissues and may improve the response to additional treatments. PLLA threads are biodegradable materials that can stimulate collagen production, while PRP contains concentrated platelets and growth factors that may enhance tissue repair and remodeling. This comparative study was conducted at the Dermatology and Venereology Department, Tanta University Hospital. Patients diagnosed with post-traumatic atrophic scars for at least one year and who had not received treatment during the preceding six months were enrolled. Patients with keloids, immunosuppression, coagulative or thrombophilic disorders, or chronic diseases were excluded. Participants were divided into two equal treatment groups. Group A received a single session of subcision followed by insertion of poly-L-lactic acid threads. Group B received subcision combined with PRP injection for four sessions at one-month intervals. Clinical photographs were obtained before treatment and three months after treatment. Clinical improvement was assessed by two blinded dermatologists using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, while patient satisfaction and treatment-related complaints or adverse effects were also recorded. Skin biopsies were obtained from six patients before treatment and three months after treatment and evaluated using hematoxylin and eosin and trichrome staining to assess histopathological changes. All patients were followed for three months. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, with approval number 32889/01/19, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Interventions

PROCEDUREsubcision and PLLA threads' insertion

subcision and PLLA threads' insertion at the same session

PROCEDUREPRP and subcision (PRP-S)

PRP and subcision (PRP-S) injection monthly for four sessions

Sponsors

Tanta University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with post-traumatic atrophic scars. Scar duration of at least 1 year. No treatment received during the previous 6 months.

Exclusion criteria

* Keloids Immunosuppression Coagulative disorders Thrombophilic disorders Any chronic diseases

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) score3 months after treatmentClinical improvement of post-traumatic atrophic scars was assessed using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale by two dermatologists blinded to the treatment group. The scale was graded from 1 to 4: Grade 1 = mild/no improvement (0-25%), Grade 2 = moderate improvement (26-50%), Grade 3 = marked improvement (51-75%), and Grade 4 = excellent improvement (\>75%).

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 21, 2026