Objectives: This presentation examines retrospective evidence on exosome application for hypertrophic scars, comparing it to conventional therapies such as corticosteroids, laser treatments, and silicone gels, which often show variable efficacy and recurrence rates. Evaluating exosomes’ role in modulating inflammation, collagen remodeling, and tissue regeneration, findings highlight their potential to improve scar texture, reduce hypertrophy, and enhance healing. These insights pave the way for integrating exosome therapy into future scar management protocols.

Introduction: Hypertrophic scars remain a therapeutic challenge, with conventional treatments such as corticosteroids, lasers, and silicone gels often providing inconsistent results and high recurrence. This presentation examines retrospective clinical evidence on exosome therapy as a novel approach. By analyzing outcomes in comparison to established modalities, we explore how exosomes may address key limitations through their effects on inflammation, collagen remodeling, and regenerative signaling in scarred tissue.

Materials / method: This multicenter, multipractitioner, and multimodal retrospective study reviewed patients treated for hypertrophic scars using topical exosome application following microneedling, fractional CO2, and other ablative laser treatments. Outcomes were compared to those of patients who received conventional therapies including corticosteroid injections, fractional lasers, and silicone-based products. Standardized photographs and physician assessments evaluated scar height, redness, pliability, and patient-reported satisfaction. Safety data were collected and reviewed across all modalities.

Results: Subjects treated with exosomes demonstrated measurable improvements in scar texture, pliability, and height reduction earlier in the treatment timeline compared to those receiving conventional therapies. Redness was reduced more uniformly, and pliability scores improved across all modalities. These effects were consistent regardless of the delivery method used. Patient-reported satisfaction was notably higher in the exosome group. No adverse events were observed, supporting a strong safety and tolerability profile.

Conclusion: This study supports exosome therapy as a promising addition to hypertrophic scar management. By targeting key regenerative pathways, exosomes improved scar outcomes more effectively and safely than many conventional options. The multimodal integration with microneedling and laser devices further enhanced their efficacy. These findings suggest that exosome therapy may redefine future protocols for scar treatment, offering a safe, versatile, and consistently effective alternative for improving long-term healing and tissue quality.

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 review the safety of intraesional corticosteroid injections for scar and keloid treatment, focus on systemic absorption and recommendations from various guidelines.
- To report of the recent study and in-house research on the blood level of medication after injection and adrenal suppression.
- To review the dose recommendation and type of corticosteroid for intralesional steroids.

Objectives: To compare pigment reduction, treatment sessions required, and patient satisfaction between 532‑nm Q‑switched and 577‑nm high‑power optically pumped semiconductor (HOPSL) lasers in Fitzpatrick skin types II–III with freckles. Additional aims included assessing transient hyper/hypopigmentation rates and determining how both modalities align with clinical needs when treating patients with possible concurrent vascular concerns.

Introduction: Freckles (ephelides) often affect individuals with lighter skin. The 532‑nm Q‑switched laser is commonly used due to rapid melanin targeting, but higher rates of transient hyperpigmentation may occur. Meanwhile, 577‑nm HOPSL has been proposed to offer specific hemoglobin absorption and less thermal spread, potentially benefiting patients who also present with rosacea or telangiectasias. Direct comparative data, however, remain limited.

Materials / method: Twenty‑four patients (skin types II–III) with multiple freckles underwent both treatments. Each laser session was performed biweekly, up to four total sessions, or until ≥80% pigment reduction was achieved. The 532‑nm Q‑switched group received 1–1.4 J/cm² (6–8 ns pulse), and the 577‑nm HOPSL group 12–14 J/cm² (16–18 ms pulse, 1mm spot size). Mexameter, VisioFace, Visioscope, and dermoscopy evaluated pigment intensity before and one month after the fourth session.

Results: At one month post‑fourth session, <4% of freckles in the 532‑nm group showed <50% pigment reduction; on average, 2.7 sessions yielded >80% reduction in 85% of freckles. In contrast, 32% of 577‑nm–treated freckles had <50% pigment reduction at the same time point; with an average of 3.7 sessions, 44% exceeded 80% reduction. Patient “very satisfied” rates were 85% (532 nm) vs. 75% (577 nm). Transient hyperpigmentation occurred in 20% of 532‑treated lesions (4% persisted to month three); one 577‑treated freckle showed residual hypopigmentation.

Conclusion: Though the 532‑nm Q‑switched laser produced faster and somewhat more robust freckle clearance, the 577‑nm HOPSL also yielded satisfactory results with fewer long‑term pigment shifts. These findings support both wavelengths as valid therapies. Clinicians might opt for 577 nm particularly when coexisting vascular issues (e.g. rosacea, telangiectasias) are present, balancing overall safety and efficacy considerations.

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