Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2020 Sep 25;99(39):e22256. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022256

Comparative effectiveness of different therapies for treating striae distensae

A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Haishan Lu 1, Jian Guo 1, Xudong Hong 1, Aifen Chen 1, Xudong Zhang 1, Shengxian Shen 1,∗
Editor: Bingrong Zhou1
PMCID: PMC7523784  PMID: 32991422

Abstract

Background:

Striae distensae (SD) are common and aesthetically undesirable dermal lesions. The aim of this study is to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of different therapies in treating striae distensae using network meta-analysis.

Methods:

A systematic search of electronic databases up to December 1, 2019 was conducted. Randomized controlled trails (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of different methods in treating striae distensae were included. The primary outcomes are clinical effective rate and patient's satisfaction degree. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Network meta-analysis was based on Bayesian framework.

Results:

Fourteen trails that met the criteria with 651 subjects were included. The results of the network meta-analysis show that topical tretinoin combined bipolar radiofrequency showed the highest probability of being the best method to improve the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of treating SD (84.5% and 95.7% respectively), closely followed by bipolar radiofrequency (75.3% and 84.3% respectively). Among laser treatment, CO2 fractional laser is superior to other lasers in the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction (72.0% and 58.1% respectively). Statistics showed the topical tretinoin was the worst-performing option in improving the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of SD treatment (5.4% and 5.1% respectively).

Conclusion:

Based on the results of network meta-analysis, we recommend treating striae distensae with bipolar radio frequency combined topical tretinoin. The commonly used CO2 fractional laser can be considered as alternative treatment candidate. Additional large-scale RCTs are necessary to obtain more precise estimates of their relative efficacy.

Keywords: clinic treatment, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trail, striae distensae

1. Introduction

Striae distensae (SD) or stretch marks are common and aesthetically undesirable dermal lesions, which closely related to rapid skin stretching, hormonal changes, and genetic factors.[1] Manifested as atrophic linear plaques, SD initially present as flattened or slightly raised pink or red scars (striae rubra) before subsequently turning into paler, flat, and permanent (striae alba).[2] SD generally appears along the cleavage lines in the abdomen, hips, thighs, and breasts, commonly developing during pubertal growth spurts and pregnancy, and associated with Cushing syndrome and oral or topical corticosteroid use.[3] The pathophysiological mechanism of SD involved in an inflammatory reaction and elastolysis arising from the release of elastase from mast cells.[2,4] Similar to scars, SD histologically is characterized by thinning of the overlying epidermis, loss of rete ridges, densely packed collagen bundles aligned parallel to the reticular dermis and atrophic skin.[1,5] Although not regarded as a disease, SD results in substantial psychological discomfort and cosmetic concern for women.[6]

Several treatments methods, such as topical agents, microdermabrasion, laser therapies, light therapies, needling therapy, radio frequency (RF) devices, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, have been advocated with variable efficacy.[7] However, there are no clear ranking of these therapies in terms of their clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction. With technological advances in aesthetic medicine, an updated quantitative comparative research was needed to aid in clinical decision making.

To tackle this problem, network meta-analysis that is a statistical tool of quantifying evidence from a network of multiple randomized controlled trails (RCTs) can be employed.[8] This method can simultaneously compare multiple competing interventions that have no head-to-head trails available in a single statistical model.[9] The aims of our study are to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs to comprehensively assess the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction of different methods for treating striae distensae.

2. Methods

According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and PRISMA Extension Statement for Network Meta-Analysis, a systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed.[10] The data and information used in our study was from previously published clinical trials; therefore, ethical approval from Ethics Committee and Institutional Review Board was not required.

2.1. Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE online databases by 2 independent authors (JG and DX). The literature search was performed until December 1, 2019, and all published RCTs were included in the review. The following key terms were selected under Medical Subject Headings for the search: “striae distensae” or “stretch marks” or “striae rubra” or “striae alba” or “striae gravidarum” and “randomized controlled trails.” To avoid the potential omission of studies, we searched additional databases, such as opengrey.eu for gray literature. We also manually screened reference lists of previous systematic reviews. Two reviewers (AC and XZ) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all the studies, and the studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were retrieved for assessments. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. Duplicates were removed using Endnote X9 (Thomson Reuters Co, New York).

2.2. Eligibility criteria

2.2.1. Types of studies

Randomized controlled clinical trials for treating striae distensae were included. Studies should evaluate at least 2 therapies. Trials were excluded if they did not provide validated therapeutic protocols and did not report the results of the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction.

2.2.2. Types of interventions

Interventions included topical agents, microdermabrasion, laser therapies, light therapies, needling therapy, radio frequency RF devices, PRP injection, and combined therapies. The therapeutic methods were compared with each other.

2.2.3. Types of outcomes

We selected the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate as the outcomes of this study. Interventions included topical agents, microdermabrasion, laser therapies, light therapies, needling therapy, radio frequency RF devices, PRP injection, and combined therapies. The therapeutic methods were compared with each other. The clinical effectiveness was analyzed using photographic materials by 2 dermatologists blinded to the study group. Evaluators used a quartile grading scale of 0 = no improvement, 1 = 1% to 25% (mild) improvement, 2 = 26% to 50% (moderate) improvement, 3 = 51% to 75% (good) improvement, and 4 = 76% to 100% (excellent) improvement. Each participant was asked to rate overall satisfaction as 0 = unsatisfied, 1 = slightly satisfied, 2 = moderately satisfied, 3 = satisfied, or 4 = very satisfied.

2.3. Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (AC and XZ) independently extracted the data using a predesigned strategy. The extracted information included the participant characteristics, interventions, intervention time, outcome measures, funding, and conflicts of interests. Then, the data were integrated. Disagreements within the included study were resolved through discussion. If an agreement could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted. Two reviewers (JG and XDH) independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (Review Manager, V.5.2), which involving random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. We also assessed the risk of bias across trials. If more than 50% of the information was from trials at a low risk of bias, the domain was judged to be at a low risk of bias. Similarly, if most information was from RCTs with an unclear/high risk of bias, the domain was considered to be at an unclear/high risk of bias.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Network meta-analysis using Bayesian-network method was applied to synthesize evidence for the primary outcome. This approach estimated relative effects of multiple treatments by fitting generalized linear model under Bayesian framework. Heterogeneity (I2) was evaluated to determine variability between the included studies. I2 value of 25% was defined as low heterogeneity, 50% as moderate heterogeneity, and 75% as high heterogeneity. Consistency of results from direct and indirect evidence was analyzed using the node-splitting analysis of inconsistency. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 16.0.

2.5. Inconsistency analysis and sensitivity analysis

Model inconsistency was assessed using the node-splitting method. If the P value was smaller than .05, then an inconsistency was considered as detected. The node-splitting models were generated via the STATA 14.0. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the influence of low-quality studies. If the result of rank probability changes slightly, indicating that the results were credible.

3. Result

3.1. Search results

Our search strategy yielded a total of 1350 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 59 trials were included based on the titles and abstracts. After careful full-text screening, 45 articles were discarded for the reasons listed in Figure 1. Fourteen RCTs[11–24] met the inclusion criteria, involving nonablative laser, CO2 fractional laser, Nd:YAG laser, intense pulsed light, topical tretinoin, carboxytherapy, platelet-rich plasma injection, microdermabrasion, bipolar radiofrequency, microneedling, and combined treatment methods. The characteristics of the included trials are presented in Table 1. The total numbers of participants in these studies were 651.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart for literature search result. RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

3.1.

Open in a new tab

3.2. Risk of bias and quality assessment

Quantification of the risk of bias assessment is presented in Figure 2. A random sequence was generated in 13 trials, suggesting the risk of bias in randomization was low. All the studies had unclear information about the methods used to conceal the allocation, therefore, we considered that the risk of bias was unclear for the domain of allocation concealment. The outcomes evaluators were successfully blinded in all included trials, and the risk of bias in this domain was judged to be low. However, the participants and personnel were unclearly blinded in most trials (n = 12, 85.7%). As for the incomplete outcome data element, there was a low risk of bias because most studies reported complete data (n = 11, 78.6%). There was also a low risk of selective outcome reporting because 12 of the studies had a low risk of bias in this domain (85.7%). In addition, the risk of other biases was also low (n = 10, 71.4%). Overall, the certainty evidence of study was moderate.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias graph (upper) and summary (lower).

3.3. Results of the network meta-analysis

The network graph was built via STATA shown in Figure 3. The size of the circle represents the number of participants, and the thickness of the edge represents the number of studies. All potential comparisons were calculated and presented as ORs and 95% CrIs. The results are listed in Table 2, and the significant differences are shaded.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Network of comparisons of nonablative laser, CO2 fractional laser, Nd:YAG laser, intense pulsed light, topical tretinoin, carboxytherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, microdermabrasion, bipolar radiofrequency, microneedling, and combined treatment methods for treating SD. Note: The size of the circle represents the number of participants, and the thickness of the edge represents the number of studies.

Table 2.

Results (odd radio, with 95% confidence interval) of the network meta-analysis.

3.3.

Open in a new tab

In the clinical effectiveness aspect, CO2 fractional laser, bipolar radiofrequency, topical tretinoin + bipolar radiofrequency significantly yielded better outcomes than microdermabrasion; CO2 fractional laser, PRP injection, PRP injection + microdermabrasion, carboxytherapy, bipolar radiofrequency, topical tretinoin + bipolar radiofrequency were significantly more superior than topical tretinoin; CO2 fractional laser was significantly better than intense pulsed light. No significant differences were found in other comparisons (Table 2, lower-left triangle).

With regard to patient satisfaction rate, CO2 fractional laser, PRP injection, PRP injection + microdermabrasion, microneedling, carboxytherapy, bipolar radiofrequency, topical tretinoin + bipolar radiofrequency significantly yielded better outcomes than microdermabrasion and topical tretinoin; nonablative Er: glass laser, CO2 fractional laser, PRP injection, PRP injection + microdermabrasion, microneedling, carboxytherapy, bipolar radiofrequency, topical tretinoin + bipolar radiofrequency were significantly more superior than intense pulsed light; topical tretinoin + bipolar radiofrequency was significantly better than PRP injection. No significant differences were found in other comparisons (Table 2, upper-left triangle).

3.4. Rank probability based on SUCRA

The ranking probability in terms of the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate is illustrated in Figure 4. Larger areas under the surface under cumulative ranking curve represent better effectiveness. Topical tretinoin combined bipolar radiofrequency showed the highest probability of being the best method to improve the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of treating SD (84.5% and 95.7% respectively), closely followed by bipolar radiofrequency (75.3% and 84.3% respectively). Among laser treatment, CO2 fractional laser is superior to other lasers in the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction (72.0% and 58.1% respectively). Statistics showed the topical tretinoin was the worst-performing option in improving the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of SD treatment (5.4% and 5.1% respectively).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

SUCRA of nonablative laser, CO2 fractional laser, Nd:YAG laser, intense pulsed light, topical tretinoin, carboxytherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, microdermabrasion, bipolar radiofrequency, microneedling, and combined treatment methods for improving the clinical effectiveness (A) and patient satisfaction rate (B) of treating SD. Note: The area under the curve represents the cumulative rank probability of each treatment. The larger the area, the better the cumulative rank probability. SUCRA = surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

3.5. Inconsistency analysis

Inconsistency in network meta-analysis denotes the consistency between direct and indirect evidence for each intervention. The node splitting analysis showed all clinical trials were consistent between direct and indirect comparisons (P > .05).

3.6. Sensitivity analysis

After excluding 1 low-quality study (Soliman et al), the SUCRA changed slightly, although no change occurred in the rank probabilities, indicating that the results of the network meta-analysis are robust.

4. Discussion

4.1. Main findings

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we combined direct and indirect evidence from 14 studies including 651 participants. Our network meta-analysis compared the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction of microdermabrasion, topical tretinoin, nonablative Er: glass laser, CO2 fractional laser, PRP injection, PRP injection combined microdermabrasion, IPL, microneedling, carboxytherapy, bipolar radiofrequency, topical tretinoin combined bipolar radiofrequency, Nd:YAG laser therapy for the treatment of SD. With moderate certainty, our study indicated that topical tretinoin combined bipolar radiofrequency and bipolar radiofrequency had the highest probability of providing the best outcome in terms of clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Topical tretinoin was the worst-performing option in improving the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of SD treatment.

4.2. Agreements and disagreements with other studies

A previous review reported that 1540-nm nonablative fractionated laser was a worthy first-line modality for the treatment of SD,[3] based on clinical and anecdotal experience, which was inconsistent with our meta-analysis. On the one hand, our study indicated that bipolar radiofrequency was superior to laser treatment. On the other hand, CO2 ablative fractional laser provided better outcome than nonablative Er: glass laser in the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction of SD treatment.

Bipolar radiofrequency can pass through the skin, and generate heat due to the resistance of the skin, acting on the deep dermis and fibrosis septum, and sometimes fascia, causing the contraction of existing collagen and synthesis of new collagen.[25] It accelerates the healing by means of fractional mode, so as to improve the safety of the treatment, similar to the mechanism of fractional lasers.[26] The bipolar radiofrequency system used in the included study can deliver energy in a fractional manner, and generates an array of micro-thermal zones of thermal injury in the epidermis and dermis. We assumed that the bipolar fractional radiofrequency system disrupts the stratum corneum, causing microchannels in the epidermis to alter the skin permeability so as to promote topical tretinoin penetration. The combined therapy is indicated to have a synergistic effect, which accelerates collagen synthesis and fibroblast activity.[24] Consistent with our study, the majority of trials evaluating RF for the treatment of SD have reported significant improvements, with few side effects including erythema and edema. In addition, some studies have also demonstrated subjective improvement of SD via bipolar RF combined with and ablative CO2 laser and bipolar RF combined with PRP injection.[25–27] The participants with Fitz-partrick Skin Types IV and V reported on adverse event, indicating that bipolar RF may be considered as a potential and safe therapeutic option for SD patients with skin of color.[2]

A variety of laser parameters have been studied either alone or in combination with other modalities for the treatment of SD, among which the effectiveness of nonablative fractional lasers versus ablative fractional lasers was controversial.[5,28] Our study found that CO2 ablative fractional laser was significantly superior to nonablative Er: glass laser. However, it was based on only 1 RCT directly comparing CO2 ablative fractional laser and nonablative Er: glass laser.

Numerous studies reported that tretinoins was able to increase tissue collagen I levels through stimulation of fibroblasts so as to improve the appearance of early SD.[29,30] In our study, compared with other methods, the topical tretinoin was the worst-performing option in improving the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of SD treatment. However, when topical tretinoin combined with bipolar RF, this strategy showed the highest probability of being the best method to improve the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of treating SD. Our study suggested that topical tretinoin can be used to treat SD combined with other treatment methods.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

There were several strengths in our net-work meta-analysis. Firstly, our study was the first network meta-analysis of RCTs to comprehensively assess the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction of different methods for treating striae distensae. Secondly, we conducted a comprehensively searched for literature, with 2 independent reviewers assessing quality, to reduce any potential bias. Thirdly, our network model consisted of a closed loop, which allowed for the assessment of inconsistency for both direct and indirect evidence. More importantly, all the trials included were RCTs, which were the highest level of evidence, thus our results should strongly reflect the true clinical effectiveness of these methods. In addition, the node-splitting analysis showed all clinical trials were consistent between direct and indirect comparisons, indicating our analysis was based on consistent evidence.

Nevertheless, this study also has limitations. First, some treatments were presented in only 1 study. Thus, more high-quality RCTs were needed in the future to corroborate these results. Second, the participants were unclearly blinded in most trials, which may result in participant bias. Third, the English restriction during the search can possibly affect the comprehensiveness of the search strategy. Finally, there may be a publication bias because all the articles reported positive results of their clinical trials. But our funnel plots showed the publication bias was low (Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Funnel plots of the included studies involving the clinical effectiveness (A) and patient satisfaction rate (B) of treating SD.

5. Conclusion

Our network meta-analysis compared the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction of 14 modalities for treating striae distensae. With moderate certainty, our study indicated that topical tretinoin combined bipolar radiofrequency and bipolar radiofrequency had higher probability of providing the better outcome in terms of clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction. However, topical tretinoin only was the worst-performing option in improving the clinical effectiveness and patient satisfaction rate of SD treatment. Additional large-scale RCTs are necessary to obtain more precise estimates of their relative efficacy.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from “Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation Basic Public Welfare Research Project”. (LGF18H110003).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Haishan Lu, Jian Guo, Shengxian Shen.

Formal analysis: Haishan Lu, Jian Guo, Xudong Hong, Aifen Chen.

Funding acquisition: Haishan Lu, Aifen Chen, Xudong Zhang.

Investigation: Haishan Lu, Jian Guo, Aifen Chen.

Resources: Jian Guo, Shengxian Shen.

Supervision: Shengxian Shen, Xudong Zhang.

Writing – original draft: Haishan Lu, Jian Guo.

Writing – review & editing: Haishan Lu, Xudong Hong, Shengxian Shen.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, CO2 = carbon dioxide, OR = odd radio, PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, PRP = platelet-rich plasma, RCTs = randomized controlled trails, RF = radio frequency, SD = striae distensae, SUCRA = surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

How to cite this article: Lu H, Guo J, Hong X, Chen A, Zhang X, Shen S. Comparative effectiveness of different therapies for treating striae distensae: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine. 2020;99:39(e22256).

Funding Source: Zhejiang Province Medicine and Health Technology Plan Project; Award ID: 2018KY631.

HL and JG contributed equally and co-first authors to this work.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • [1].Al-Himdani S, Ud-Din S, Gilmore S, et al. Striae distensae: a comprehensive review and evidence-based evaluation of prophylaxis and treatment. Br J Dermatol 2014;170:527–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Hague A, Bayat A. Therapeutic targets in the management of striae distensae: a systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017;77:559–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Ross NA, Ho D, Fisher J, et al. Striae distensae: preventative and therapeutic modalities to improve aesthetic appearance. Dermatol Surg 2017;43:635–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Elsaie ML, Baumann LS, Elsaaiee LT. Striae distensae (stretch marks) and different modalities of therapy: an update. Dermatol Surg 2009;35:563–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Aldahan AS, Shah VV, Mlacker S, et al. Laser and light treatments for striae distensae: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Clin Dermatol 2016;17:239–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Lokhande AJ, Mysore V. Striae distensae treatment review and update. Indian Dermatol Online J 2019;10:380–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Forbat E, Al-Niaimi F. Treatment of striae distensae: an evidence-based approach. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2019;21:49–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Shim S, Yoon BH, Shin IS, et al. Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata. Epidemiol Health 2017;39:e2017047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T. Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med 2017;12:103–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Yang YJ, Lee GY. Treatment of striae distensae with nonablative fractional laser versus ablative CO(2) fractional laser: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Dermatol 2011;23:481–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Naein FF, Soghrati M. Fractional CO2 laser as an effective modality in treatment of striae alba in skin types III and IV. J Res Med Sci 2012;17:928–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Hexsel D, Soirefmann M, Porto MD, et al. Superficial dermabrasion versus topical tretinoin on early striae distensae: a randomized, pilot study. Dermatol Surg 2014;40:537–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Ibrahim ZA, El-Tatawy RA, El-Samongy MA, et al. Comparison between the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma vs. microdermabrasion in the treatment of striae distensae: clinical and histopathological study. J Cosmet Dermatol 2015;14:336–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].El Taieb MA, Ibrahim AK. Fractional CO2 laser versus intense pulsed light in treating striae distensae. Indian J Dermatol 2016;61:174–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Khater MH, Khattab FM, Abdelhaleem MR. Treatment of striae distensae with needling therapy versus CO2 fractional laser. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2016;18:75–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Gamil HD, Ibrahim SA, Ebrahim HM, et al. Platelet-rich plasma versus tretinoin in treatment of striae distensae: a comparative study. Dermatol Surg 2018;44:697–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Hodeib AA, Hassan GFR, Ragab MNM, et al. Clinical and immunohistochemical comparative study of the efficacy of carboxytherapy vs platelet-rich plasma in treatment of stretch marks. J Cosmet Dermatol 2018;17:1008–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Zaleski-Larsen LA, Jones IT, Guiha I, et al. A comparison study of the nonablative fractional 1565-nm Er: glass and the Picosecond fractional 1064/532-nm Nd: yag lasers in the treatment of striae alba: a split body double-blinded trial. Dermatol Surg 2018;44:1311–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Ahmed NA, Mostafa OM. Comparative study between: carboxytherapy, platelet-rich plasma, and tripolar radiofrequency, their efficacy and tolerability in striae distensae. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019;18:788–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Naspolini AP, Boza JC, da Silva VD, et al. Efficacy of microneedling versus fractional non-ablative laser to treat striae alba: a randomized study. Am J Clin Dermatol 2019;20:277–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Sobhi RM, Mohamed IS, El Sharkawy DA, et al. Comparative study between the efficacy of fractional micro-needle radiofrequency and fractional CO(2) laser in the treatment of striae distensae. Lasers Med Sci 2019;34:1295–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Soliman M, Mohsen Soliman M, El-Tawdy A, et al. Efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser versus microneedling in the treatment of striae distensae. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2019;21:270–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Tian T, Luo YJ, Wang H, et al. Efficacy and safety of a sublative bipolar fractional radiofrequency system combined with topical tretinoin in treating striae gravidarum: a randomized pilot study. Dermatol Surg 2019;45:1245–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Sadick NS, Nassar AH, Dorizas AS, et al. Bipolar and multipolar radiofrequency. Dermatol Surg 2014;40: suppl 12: S174–179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Gentile RD, Kinney BM, Sadick NS. Radiofrequency technology in face and neck rejuvenation. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2018;26:123–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Kravvas G, Veitch D, Al-Niaimi F. The use of energy devices in the treatment of striae: a systematic literature review. J Dermatolog Treat 2019;30:294–302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Savas JA, Ledon JA, Franca K, et al. Lasers and lights for the treatment of striae distensae. Lasers Med Sci 2014;29:1735–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Korgavkar K, Wang F. Stretch marks during pregnancy: a review of topical prevention. Br J Dermatol 2015;172:606–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Ud-Din S, McGeorge D, Bayat A. Topical management of striae distensae (stretch marks): prevention and therapy of striae rubrae and albae. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016;30:211–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES