Premium
Comparative analysis of effects induced by hyaluronic acid and its combined formula on skin functional parameters in second‐degree photoaging
Author(s) -
Azaryan Helen G.,
Khachikyan Khachik M.,
Taha Ahmed,
Badawy Ezzat
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of cosmetic dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.626
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1473-2165
pISSN - 1473-2130
DOI - 10.1111/jocd.14298
Subject(s) - photoaging , medicine , hyaluronic acid , transepidermal water loss , dermatology , significant difference , platelet rich plasma , skin aging , patient satisfaction , surgery , pathology , platelet , stratum corneum , anatomy
Background and Aims The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of intradermal injections of modified hyaluronic acid (mHA) and combined injections of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) and mHA (HA‐PRP) on clinical and functional parameters in women with second‐degree photoaging. Methods Seventy‐six healthy female participants diagnosed with second degree of skin photoaging were involved in two interventional study groups. The first group was treated with “bio‐reparative” method (mHA) and the second group with “combined HA‐PRP therapy”. Additionally, 20 practically healthy women, with the first degree of photoaging according to Glogau classification, constituted the control group. Parameters of facial skin were evaluated in all groups before and after the injections. The patients in both interventional groups were compared based on skin therapy outcomes, using corneometry, sebumetry, cutometry, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and skin pH assessments. A post‐interventional analysis was conducted to evaluate the level of satisfaction in physicians and study participants in accordance with GAIS. Intragroup and between‐group analysis for the selected parameters was performed. Results Compared with the control group, the combined therapy group did not show significant difference in parameters ( p > 0.05) and the scores were significantly improved compared to mHA group ( p < 0.001). Control and HA‐PRP–treated groups were different only in sebumetry scores (SigDev = 2.1%). Significant difference was observed in the GAIS scores for patients between the interventional groups ( p = 4.03297E−11 and 3.4093E−09, respectively). Conclusion Implementation of combined therapy is significantly effective compared to the mHA therapy alone. The higher efficacy is derived from significant recovery of functional parameters and GAIS survey results.