4.0 Article

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Cryosurgery in Patients With Sebaceous Hyperplasia of the Face

Journal

JOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 202-206

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1203475416685076

Keywords

cryosurgery; sebaceous hyperplasia; efficacy; treatment; cosmetics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cryosurgery is an effective treatment for sebaceous hyperplasia, but there have been few clinical studies. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cryosurgery in the treatment of sebaceous hyperplasia. Methods: Cryosurgery was performed 6 times, at 2-week intervals, with liquid nitrogen, and evaluated in 40 patients with 517 lesions ranging from 2 to 9 mm over the forehead, cheeks, and chin. All of the lesions were measured before and after the treatment. Results: The mean age of the participants was 54.7 +/- 8.9 years, and the male/female ratio was 21/19 (1.1). The mean time of the disease duration was 4.2 +/- 3.0 years. After 6 cooling cycles, an excellent response (76%-100%) was seen in 341 patients (65.9%), a very good response (51%-75%) was seen in 102 (19.7%), a good response (26%-50%) was seen in 57 (11.1%), a poor response (1%-25%) was seen in 15 (2.9%), and no response (0%) was seen in 2 (0.4%). Age (P = .004) and sex (P < .0001) were independent predictors of an excellent response. The excellent response rates were 71.4% for males, 61.8% for females, 70.4% for ages older than 55 years, and 61.8% for ages younger than 55 years. Temporary hyperpigmentation was found in 5 lesions (0.96%), and recurrence was not seen at the 4-month follow-up. Conclusions: The well-aimed and controlled used of cryosurgery is an effective method for treating significant cosmetic disfigurement in patients with sebaceous hyperplasia. It is a low-cost therapy without scarring, hypopigmentation, or recurrence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available