Clinical Evaluation Of Therapeutic Effects Of Fire Needle On Cystic Acne

Objective:1. Clinical observation on quench fire needle to prick and treat cystic acne and acne 2. To compare therapeutic effects of two treatments, and the differences of their adverse reactions.Methods:80 patients who have cystic acne were randomly divided into two groups, treatment group (use quench prick fire needle) and control group (use acne needle), each group consists of 40 people. The treatment group received fire needle prick quenching treatment, disinfection parts of lesion skin. The tip of single head fire needle was placed in a heating alcohol lamp until it became red-hot, and penetrated the cyst top for about 1-5mm, after that extracted the needle quickly. Squeeze the bottom of the cyst with a cotton swab, let the plug of sebum and pus discharge until clean, press the wound and disinfection. The cyst lesions was healed after one treatment. Second treatment will only be done for unhealed or new cystic lesions. Once every 7 days for 4 weeks before treatment, and 7 days after the last treatment, each lesion was integrally assessed, observed and recorded the adverse reactions. Steps taken for the treatment group and control group were similar and consistent.Results:(1) Before treatment, statistically no significant difference (P>0.05) between two groups of the patient, either age, gender, disease duration or treatment of cystic lesions. After treatment, the treatment group which consists of 40 patients,10 of them were completely healed,18 got effective results,9 healed, only 3 did not have any result. The effective rate was 70.00%, and total effective rate was 92.50%. Compare to the control group,2 participants withdraw and left 40, among them 5 were completely healed,12 got effective results,16 healed,5 did not have any result. The effective rate was 50.00%, and the total effective rate was 86.84%. By using the chi-square test, there was no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two groups. (2) Patients with cystic lesions integration level from both groups were healed after treatment, the differences were statistically significant (P?0.05). During the process of treatment, the level of integration for the first eight days, two group showed no significant difference (P>0.05). The integral evaluation of 15 days,22 days,29 days, two groups were significantly different (P<0.05), and the integral mean of the treatment group were less than the control group, X???<X???. (3) During the process of treatment, the treatment group had five cases of adverse reactions, pigmentation 3 cases, pits two cases,0 cases of infection, and the adverse reaction was12.50%; while the control group had 12 cases of adverse reactions, pigmentation 5 cases, pit five cases, two cases of infection, the adverse reaction was 31.58%.Conclusion:(1) Quenching hot needle prick therapy for cystic acne has a good therapeutic effect. (2) Quenching hot needle prick therapy was better than acne therapy (3) Quenching hot needle prick therapy for cystic acne, and the adverse reactions in the treatment such as pigmentation, pit, infections were lower than acne needle therapy.