Andrea Sechi, Raffaele Dante Caposiena Caro, Alessandra Michelucci, Valentina Dini, Stefano Piaserico, Iris Zalaudek, Francesco Savoia, Jacopo Tartaglia
{"title":"CO2 Laser Versus Surgical Deroofing for the Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Tunnels: A Comparative Multicentric, Retrospective Study.","authors":"Andrea Sechi, Raffaele Dante Caposiena Caro, Alessandra Michelucci, Valentina Dini, Stefano Piaserico, Iris Zalaudek, Francesco Savoia, Jacopo Tartaglia","doi":"10.1097/DSS.0000000000004498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tunnels of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are one of the most challenging aspects to manage, and different surgical techniques have been proposed for their treatment. CO2 laser and surgical deroofing are 2 of the most widely used techniques, but no studies have compared them directly.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of CO2 laser treatment versus surgical deroofing for HS tunnels, with a focus on healing time, complication rates, pain perception, and cosmetic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The authors performed a multicentric retrospective analysis of 20 patients with HS tunnels who were treated with either CO2 laser (n = 10) or surgical deroofing (n = 10). The primary end point was to compare the 2 procedures in terms of healing time, complication rates, pain, and cosmetic outcome. Outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for pain, the Vancouver Scar Scale for scar evaluation, and the relapse rate at 6 months. Secondary end point included the identification of variables associated with the healing time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean time to healing was 4.7 ± 1.9 weeks in the CO2 laser group and 10.9 ± 4.1 weeks in the surgical deroofing group (p < .01). Pain score at the first dressing change was lower in the CO2 laser group, with a mean Visual Analog Scale score of 1.7 ± 0.8 in the CO2 laser group and 4.9 ± 1.7 in the surgical deroofing group (p < .01). The mean scar evaluation score using the Vancouver Scar Scale at 6-month follow-up was 2.5 ± 1.3 in the CO2 laser group and 3.4 ± 1.1 in the surgical deroofing group. The number of postprocedural complications was low in both groups (1 in the CO2 laser group and 3 in the surgical deroofing group). The proportion of patients achieving complete healing of the tunnels at 6 months was similar among the CO2 laser and the surgical deroofing group (90% in the CO2 laser group vs 80% in the surgical group).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CO2 laser is a safe and effective treatment for HS tunnels, with fast healing rates and low pain perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":11289,"journal":{"name":"Dermatologic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatologic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000004498","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Tunnels of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are one of the most challenging aspects to manage, and different surgical techniques have been proposed for their treatment. CO2 laser and surgical deroofing are 2 of the most widely used techniques, but no studies have compared them directly.
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of CO2 laser treatment versus surgical deroofing for HS tunnels, with a focus on healing time, complication rates, pain perception, and cosmetic outcomes.
Materials and methods: The authors performed a multicentric retrospective analysis of 20 patients with HS tunnels who were treated with either CO2 laser (n = 10) or surgical deroofing (n = 10). The primary end point was to compare the 2 procedures in terms of healing time, complication rates, pain, and cosmetic outcome. Outcome measures included Visual Analog Scale for pain, the Vancouver Scar Scale for scar evaluation, and the relapse rate at 6 months. Secondary end point included the identification of variables associated with the healing time.
Results: The mean time to healing was 4.7 ± 1.9 weeks in the CO2 laser group and 10.9 ± 4.1 weeks in the surgical deroofing group (p < .01). Pain score at the first dressing change was lower in the CO2 laser group, with a mean Visual Analog Scale score of 1.7 ± 0.8 in the CO2 laser group and 4.9 ± 1.7 in the surgical deroofing group (p < .01). The mean scar evaluation score using the Vancouver Scar Scale at 6-month follow-up was 2.5 ± 1.3 in the CO2 laser group and 3.4 ± 1.1 in the surgical deroofing group. The number of postprocedural complications was low in both groups (1 in the CO2 laser group and 3 in the surgical deroofing group). The proportion of patients achieving complete healing of the tunnels at 6 months was similar among the CO2 laser and the surgical deroofing group (90% in the CO2 laser group vs 80% in the surgical group).
Conclusion: CO2 laser is a safe and effective treatment for HS tunnels, with fast healing rates and low pain perception.
期刊介绍:
Exclusively devoted to dermatologic surgery, the Dermatologic Surgery journal publishes the most clinically comprehensive and up-to-date information in its field. This unique monthly journal provides today’s most expansive and in-depth coverage of cosmetic and reconstructive skin surgery and skin cancer through peer-reviewed original articles, extensive illustrations, case reports, ongoing features, literature reviews and correspondence. The journal provides information on the latest scientific information for all types of dermatologic surgery including:
-Ambulatory phlebectomy-
Blepharoplasty-
Body contouring-
Chemical peels-
Cryosurgery-
Curettage and desiccation-
Dermabrasion-
Excision and closure-
Flap Surgery-
Grafting-
Hair restoration surgery-
Injectable neuromodulators-
Laser surgery-
Liposuction-
Microdermabrasion-
Microlipoinjection-
Micropigmentation-
Mohs micrographic surgery-
Nail surgery-
Phlebology-
Sclerotherapy-
Skin cancer surgery-
Skin resurfacing-
Soft-tissue fillers.
Dermatologists, dermatologic surgeons, plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons and facial plastic surgeons consider this a must-read publication for anyone in the field.