Indian Journal of Dermatology
  Publication of IADVL, WB
  Official organ of AADV
Indexed with Science Citation Index (E) , Web of Science and PubMed
Users online: 648  
Home About  Editorial Board  Current Issue Archives Online Early Coming Soon Guidelines Subscriptions  e-Alerts    Login  
    Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this page Email this page
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 67  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 504-511

Efficacy and safety of carboxytherapy versus combined microneedling with topical glutathione in the treatment of patients with periorbital hyperpigmentation: An evaluator-blind, split-face, controlled pilot clinical trial

Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Amr Abdelhamed
Lecturer of Dermatology, Venereology, and Andrology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Andrology, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag - 82524
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijd.ijd_394_21

Rights and Permissions

Background: Periorbital hyperpigmentation (POH) is a common skin condition that presents as infraorbital darkening. POH has a multifactorial etiology. Studies evaluating POH treatment are several with varying satisfaction results. Objectives: To compare carboxytherapy and microneedling (MN) combined with topical glutathione for POH treatment. Materials and Methods: A split-face pilot clinical trial was conducted on 31 female patients with POH. Carboxytherapy injection was done at the right periorbital area, and MN with topical glutathione (Left periorbital area), for 6 biweekly sessions. Visual analogue scale (VAS), dermoscopic evaluation, patient satisfaction, and patient dermatology life quality index questionnaire (DLQI), safety evaluation were done with 3 months follow up. The trial registry number is NCT04389788. Results: Carboxytherapy showed a higher significant improvement as regards VAS evaluation compared to MN with glutathione during the active treatment phase (P = 0.001) and during the follow-up phase (P = 0.006). Also, the dermoscopic evaluation showed a statistically significant improvement in the Carboxytherapy group. DLQI showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001). As regards patient satisfaction, carboxytherapy showed in comparison to MN with glutathione (80.6% vs 25.8% in moderate satisfaction) and (3.2% vs 0% in marked satisfaction respectively) (P = .05). As regards the patients' safety, there was no significant difference between both eyes (P = .23). Conclusions: Carboxytherapy showed higher efficacy than MN with glutathione in POH patients. Carboxytherapy improved clinical, dermoscopic, patient satisfaction, and patient DLQI; with a good safety profile.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal