Objectives: To compare clinical efficacy between fractional microneedle radiofrequency and intradermal Botulinum toxin type A injection

Introduction: Primary axillary hyperhidrosis (PAH) is a chronic idiopathic disorder causing major stress in patients. Among the common therapies for PAH, only surgical interventions have proven feasible as a permanent solution.

Materials / method: This study was randomized, intra-individual split side comparative study
Twenty female subjects, clinically diagnosed of primary axillary hyperhidrosis were enrolled.
All subjects randomly assigned to receive either FMR device on one side of axilla or 50 units of intradermal botulinum toxin A on contralateral side of axilla.
Treatment with FMR device were scheduled for 2 sessions for 4 week apart. The parameter is 2.0 mm power of 4-6

Results: Twenty female subjects were diagnosed with axillary hyperhidrosis by positive iodine starch test at screening visit.

Mean age (standard deviation, + SD) was 36.8 (9.8) years, range between 20 to 54 years. Side effect are as following.
Microneedle RF group
Mild prolong erythema (n=2, 10 %)
mild skin desquamation (n=1, 5%)
Mild burning sensation (n=1, 5%)

Botulinum toxin A group
Skin dryness (n=1, 5%)

Conclusion: Intradermal Botulinum toxin A had better efficacy than Fractional micro-needle radiofrequency for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: To compare clinical efficacy between fractional microneedle radiofrequency and intradermal Botulinum toxin type A injection

Introduction: Primary axillary hyperhidrosis (PAH) is a chronic idiopathic disorder causing major stress in patients. Among the common therapies for PAH, only surgical interventions have proven feasible as a permanent solution.

Materials / method: This study was randomized, intra-individual split side comparative study
Twenty female subjects, clinically diagnosed of primary axillary hyperhidrosis were enrolled.
All subjects randomly assigned to receive either FMR device on one side of axilla or 50 units of intradermal botulinum toxin A on contralateral side of axilla.
Treatment with FMR device were scheduled for 2 sessions for 4 week apart. The parameter is 2.0 mm power of 4-6

Results: Twenty female subjects were diagnosed with axillary hyperhidrosis by positive iodine starch test at screening visit.

Mean age (standard deviation, + SD) was 36.8 (9.8) years, range between 20 to 54 years. Side effect are as following.
Microneedle RF group
Mild prolong erythema (n=2, 10 %)
mild skin desquamation (n=1, 5%)
Mild burning sensation (n=1, 5%)

Botulinum toxin A group
Skin dryness (n=1, 5%)

Conclusion: Intradermal Botulinum toxin A had better efficacy than Fractional micro-needle radiofrequency for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: WHAT CAN INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF APPROACH?
Age
Aging type
Experience of patient and doctor Anti-age or beautification
Fashion trends, advertising Criticism from the outside
Financial opportunities
Fear of old age (gerontophobia), dysmorphophobia and other mental disorders

WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR CHOOSING?
Doctor’s knowledge and experience
Awareness of the patient
Confidence or Trust
Technical capabilities

Introduction: FULL FACE APPROACH – what is this:
1. BTX for on label and off label zones?
2. BTX + other procedures in the same on label and off label zones?
3. BTX in some zones + other procedures in other zones = zones correction + other procedures?

Materials / method: The authors analyzed the experience of the national expert council of Ukraine, accumulated over 20 years. Highlighted the most successful tactics of aesthetic correction of the appearance of patients. Both in terms of safety and in terms of the effectiveness of therapy.

Results: Recipe of SUCCESS:
1) qualitative skills of BTX-therapy of each zone
2) access to all modern technologies, including EBDs, the ability to apply them
3) ART of healing, psychology, aesthetic vision

Conclusion: The best strategy – IF YOUR DESIRES COINCIDE WITH YOUR POSSIBILITIES!

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability