Comparative Clinical Evaluation Of Radiofrequency Micro Needling Versus Conventional Micro Needling In The Treatment Of Acne Scars In Fitzpatrick Skin Type III–IV
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66021/pakmcr1268Keywords:
Radiofrequency Microneedling, Conventional Microneedling, Atrophic Acne Scars, Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation, Effect Size.Abstract
Background: Atrophic acne scarring is a well-known sequel of inflammatory acne vulgaris, and is associated with a significant psychosocial burden. There is an increased risk for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) in Fitzpatrick III–IV.
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes and safety of RFMN and CMN in patients with atrophic acne scars of Fitzpatrick III-IV.
Methods: A prospective comparative interventional study enrolled 22 patients (G&B Grade 2–4; Fitzpatrick III–IV) into RFMN (n=11) and CMN (n=11) groups, each receiving three sessions at two-week intervals. Primary outcome was G&B scar grade change; secondary outcomes included VAS scores and patient satisfaction. Statistical methods included chi-square, t-tests, Mann–Whitney U, ANOVA, regression models, and effect sizes.
Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (all p>0.09). G&B improvement: RFMN 1.41±0.34 (50.0%) vs CMN 0.77±0.11 (25.7%); p<0.001, d=2.735. Clinical response: 54.5% of RFMN vs 0.0% of CMN achieved “Good” response (p=0.004, V=0.710). Mean VAS: 7.36±1.21 vs 4.55±1.29, p<0.001, d=2.254. PIH: 18.2% vs 45.5% (p=0.361). Treatment group was the dominant predictor of improvement (R²=0.853). No serious adverse events occurred.
Conclusion: RFMN demonstrated significantly superior efficacy over CMN for atrophic acne scar management in Fitzpatrick III–IV patients, with very large effect sizes and more favorable categorical response distributions. Both modalities were safe, with numerically lower PIH with RFMN. Adequately powered RCTs with extended follow-up are warranted.
