Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
NeoFight

RF microneedling independent studies

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know of or has anyone read a legitimate, convincing study on the efficacy of RF needling?

I've been researching for a long time without finding anything other than small sample size studies which (1) only briefly refer to risks and (2) don't thoroughly address good candidates vs bad.

When I asked a doctor with whom I have been treating about RF needling, he pretty much scoffed and called it junk science with more risks than reward - which took me by surprise.

So so since then I've been lookin for studies in tying to determine whether I am a good candidate, and there is a surprising dearth. 

For example - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134659/#!po=77.2727

...which suffers from the problems I set forth above. 

So - what is some good, independent, objective reading on rf, that might help you determine whether you're a good candidate?

Edited by NeoFight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the most interesting part of this post "When I asked a doctor with whom I have been treating about RF needling, he pretty much scoffed and called it junk science with more risks than reward - which took me by surprise."

-- Who is he sponsored by a device company, what devices does he use or believe in, does he give speeches often.  Often doctors push what they buy. Sometimes they are sponsored and as such only push that treatment. 


There are no "good canidates" vs bad with rf needing, it is more operator dependent than candidate dependent. I am sure if you have auto immune and heal poorly and scar from any treatment your a bad canidate, but all skin types can be treated.

Risks have all been covered on these boards in detail and do no need a "paper" to discuss them. Too deep fat loss, to shallow tracks and longer healing time. Energy to high is actually bad as it can lead to longer down times, creeping up needles so no protection, and no spread (Reverse of what one things). Treatment must be done by observing the skin and it's thickness, and being a experienced operator, ... the unexpereinced screw it up. 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Really helpful. I just want to be as informed as possible so when I converse with the practitioner I can have the most educated conversation possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual evidence behind scar treatments is generally of very bad quality and often with a low number of patients. One major flaw of almost all designed trials is that do not wait to include patients until 2 years after last active acne lesion (or not having controls). The presence of PIE is a dead giveaway. Therefore most results presented in the studies are confounded by the body's natural healing capabilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studies on acne scars are very difficult. .This is because everyone will have a unique set of scars, namely a mixture of atrophic, rolling, box car, ice pick, hypertrophic scars etc... Now, add the variable of age, skin type (or Ethnic origin), the number of scars, - its almost impossible to recruit a large number of patients. Then follow up these patients over 2 years, and add the other variable- including recurrent acne, skin care topically, and any other 'incidental procedures' such as Botox and dermal fillers for aesthetics, and keep all these variables constant over a period of x years. Then one has the problem of ETHICS as @CLOOD suggested, keeping a control is important. This means not treating one side of the face (split face study, blinded assessor), and hold that for 2 years. No Western ethics will ever approve of that study. If that could be done, recruit > n = 100 patients, then follow up with blinded assessors, wow... that would be one great study! Imagine consenting to those variables as well. I wonder how many recruits one would have. Yes, we can all come up with ideal studies, but real World ethics and consents, thats a whole new story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Obi wan said:

keeping a control is important. This means not treating one side of the face


Personally, I would be pissed off if they only treated one side of my face--control or not. ^_^
 
On 4/10/2018 at 1:17 PM, CLOOD said:

One major flaw of almost all designed trials is that do not wait to include patients until 2 years after last active acne lesion


I suppose the age factor will play a big role, but how much improvement do you realistically expect from a patient after, say, 6 months post-op? Personally, I've detected little to no improvement after about 3-4 months after various treatments. Would waiting up to 2 years really make any significant comparison?


  Edited by Sirius Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes

×