{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008615384615384615, 'mean_word_length': 5.775, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Subcuticular Incision Versus Naturally Sourced Porcine Collagen Filler for Acne Scars: A Randomized Split‐Face Comparison

BACKGROUND Subcuticular incision is performed to release fibrotic bands beneath acne scars and to stimulate neocollagenesis. Naturally sourced porcine collagen has been approved for filling moderate to deep facial wrinkles and nasolabial folds. To our knowledge, naturally sourced porcine collagen filler has not yet been tried as a treatment for correcting atrophic acne scars. OBJECTIVE To objectively assess and directly compare the efficacy and safety of subcuticular incision versus naturally sourced porcine collagen dermal filler in correcting atrophic and rolling acne scars. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a prospective, randomized, split‐face, single‐blind study to evaluate intermediate long‐term efficacy of subcision and collagen dermal filler on 20 unilateral faces. Patients and blinded physicians evaluated results. RESULTS Patients rated subcision as superior to collagen dermal filler at 3 months (p=.03). At 6 months, subcision had a slightly higher rating than collagen dermal filler (p=.12). Blinded evaluators leaned toward subcision at 3 months (p=.12) and at 6 months showed no preference (p=.69). CONCLUSION Subcuticular incision and naturally sourced porcine collagen dermal filler appear to be efficacious for improving atrophic and rolling acne scars. Patients may prefer subcuticular incision over collagen dermal filler. Blinded evaluators found no significant difference between the treatments. The authors indicate no significant interest with commercial supporters.