Open AccessRehabilitation of patients with sensitive skin syndrome after injection aesthetic procedures
Author(s) -
S. S. Raytseva,
С. Л. Матусевич
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
medicinskij alfavit
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2949-2807
pISSN - 2078-5631
DOI - 10.33667/2078-5631-2019-2-26(401)-97-99
Subject(s) - medicine , rehabilitation , sss* , placebo , visual analogue scale , hyaluronic acid , subcutaneous injection , physical therapy , patient satisfaction , surgery , pathology , alternative medicine , anatomy
Relevance. Any injection procedure is accompanied by damage to the skin barrier and can lead to sensitivity conversion in patients with sensitive skin, greatly extending the length of rehabilitation. This raises the question of the choice of effective and affordable rehabilitation methods after aesthetic injection interventions. Materials and methods. 52 patients aged 35 to 55 with sensitive skin syndrome (SSS) were under surveillance. All patients were subjected to combined injection of facial soft tissue correction with hyaluronic acid-based filers and biorevitalizers. After the injection intervention, a placebo controlled study was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (25 people) received non-specific external therapy with a pharmaceutical preparation containing panthenol; group 2 (27 people) together with a topic agent received light treatment with polychromatic incoherent polarized light (PIPL). The observation period was 10 days. Effectiveness, safety, and satisfaction with therapy were assessed by VAS, GAIS scales. Results. By the fourth day of therapy, the total dynamics of sign expression on the VAS scale in group 2 decreased by 92.8 %, in group 1 — by 66.8 % (p < 0.05). Light treatment using a source of PIPL resulted in a 1.5-fold reduction in rehabilitation time (p < 0.05). Side effects were not observed in any clinical case. Patients receiving PIPL were more satisfied with the results of rehabilitation. The GAIS score in groups 1 and 2 was 2.1 and 2.9 (p < 0.01).