Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32350901›Full record

ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2020

A Prospective Study Evaluating the Use of Helium Plasma for Dermal Resurfacing.

J David Holcomb, Michael Kelly, Tiffani K Hamilton, Joseph B DeLozier

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03286283 (A Prospective, Multicenter, Single Arm Clinical Study Evaluating the Use of J-Plasma® for Dermal Resurfacing), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03286283 nacompletednot on this map

A Prospective, Multicenter, Single Arm Clinical Study Evaluating the Use of J-Plasma® for Dermal Resurfacing

TypeinterventionalSponsorApyx MedicalRan2018 to 2018Enrolled55ConditionsFacial Wrinkles, RhytidesArmsJ-Plasma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J David HolcombHolcomb-Kreithen Plastic Surgery and MedSpa, 1 S. School Ave, Ste 800, Sarasota, Florida, 34237.ORCID 0000-0002-5402-9779
Michael KellyMiami Plastic Surgery, 8940 N Kendall Dr Ste. 903-E, Miami, Florida, 33176.
Tiffani K HamiltonDepartment of Hamilton Dermatology, 11800 Atlantis Place, Alpharetta, Georgia, 30022.
Joseph B DeLozierDeLozier Cosmetic Surgery Center, 209 23rd Ave N, Nashville, Tennessee, 37203.
American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery · USHamilton Dermatology · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesA novel helium plasma device was evaluated for efficacy and safety for dermal resurfacing (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03286283). The helium plasma device delivers energy in a controlled, bimodal fashion that when compared with the nitrogen plasma predicate device in a porcine animal model demonstrated a more limited depth of thermal effect but a greater skin tissue contraction. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND

methodsFifty-five eligible subjects seeking improvement in facial rhytids were enrolled for study at one of three investigational sites. Most subjects underwent full-face treatment. Power levels were limited to 20% at peri-oral and peri-orbital areas-a level that correlates to an energy density 40% lower than the highest setting on the predicate device. Three-month post-treatment Fitzpatrick Wrinkle and Elastosis Scale (FWS) scores were compared with baseline scores as determined by blinded independent photographic reviewers (IPRs) and study investigators.

resultsBlinded IPRs observed a ≥1-point FWS improvement in 63.64% of subjects whereas study investigators noted a ≥1-point FWS improvement in 54 of 55 subjects (98.18%) of subjects. 90.9% of subjects indicated "improvement" in appearance utilizing the modified Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Subgroup analysis showed 1-point (±0.05) FWS improvement by IPRs and study investigators for Fitzpatrick Skin Types II and III, age≥62, two of three study sites, and post-treatment oral steroid use. Eighty Non-Serious Adverse Events in 39 subjects were reported, most of which resolved within 14 days or less. There were no Serious Adverse Events or Unanticipated Device Effects reported.

conclusionAt the modest power level studied, a significant improvement from a single pass helium plasma dermal resurfacing treatment was observable in most subjects by IPRs and investigators, and no serious adverse events were reported. The discrepancy between IPR and study investigator FWS improvement may be explained in part by the limitations of assessing two-dimensional photographs versus live in-person evaluation of subjects. Studies evaluating higher energy levels and/or multiple treatment passes are ongoing. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

Plasma GasesSkin AgingAnimalsFaceHeliumHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSwineTreatment OutcomeHeliumPlasma Gasesclinical trialdermal resurfacingfacial wrinkle scorehelium plasmaradio frequency

Identifiers

PMID32350901
PMCPMC7754429
OpenAlexW3020850678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.