TY - JOUR
T1 - Pain in naïve and non-naïve subjects undergoing nonablative skin tightening dermatologic procedures
T2 - A nested randomized control trial
AU - Kakar, Rohit
AU - Ibrahim, Omer
AU - Disphanurat, Wareeporn
AU - Pace, Natalie
AU - West, Dennis P.
AU - Kwasny, Mary
AU - Shah, Sonia
AU - Alam, Murad
PY - 2014/4
Y1 - 2014/4
N2 - Background Pain is expected during noninvasive skin tightening and can be anxiety provoking, especially for those who have not had prior treatments. Objective To compare pain reported by patients naïve to nonablative skin tightening energy devices with those who were not naive. Methods and Materials The non-naïve group at least three nonablative laser procedures or one nonablative skin tightening procedure, and the naïve group no previous treatments. Four sites at each of two anatomic locations (periorbital and midface or cheek) were treated in each subject with needle prick, pulsed dye laser, radiofrequency, and ultrasound with the order of the interventions randomized. All interventions except ultrasound were also applied to three abdominal sites. The difference in mean pain scores between naïve and nonnaïve subjects were averaged over the anatomic sites. Results Ten naïve and 10 non-naïve subjects completed study procedures. Mean pain scores ranged from 1.3 to 4.9. The mean for all naïve conditions was 2.3 ± 1.0, vs 2.2 ± 1.4 for non-naïve conditions. There was no overall difference according to group, device, or anatomic area. Conclusions There was no significant difference in pain between naïve and non-naïve subjects undergoing cutaneous energy treatments. Individual devices may elicit more pain at specific anatomic locations.
AB - Background Pain is expected during noninvasive skin tightening and can be anxiety provoking, especially for those who have not had prior treatments. Objective To compare pain reported by patients naïve to nonablative skin tightening energy devices with those who were not naive. Methods and Materials The non-naïve group at least three nonablative laser procedures or one nonablative skin tightening procedure, and the naïve group no previous treatments. Four sites at each of two anatomic locations (periorbital and midface or cheek) were treated in each subject with needle prick, pulsed dye laser, radiofrequency, and ultrasound with the order of the interventions randomized. All interventions except ultrasound were also applied to three abdominal sites. The difference in mean pain scores between naïve and nonnaïve subjects were averaged over the anatomic sites. Results Ten naïve and 10 non-naïve subjects completed study procedures. Mean pain scores ranged from 1.3 to 4.9. The mean for all naïve conditions was 2.3 ± 1.0, vs 2.2 ± 1.4 for non-naïve conditions. There was no overall difference according to group, device, or anatomic area. Conclusions There was no significant difference in pain between naïve and non-naïve subjects undergoing cutaneous energy treatments. Individual devices may elicit more pain at specific anatomic locations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897979701&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897979701&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/dsu.12440
DO - 10.1111/dsu.12440
M3 - Article
C2 - 24479703
AN - SCOPUS:84897979701
SN - 1076-0512
VL - 40
SP - 398
EP - 404
JO - Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology
JF - Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology
IS - 4
ER -