Clinical effects of transparent facial pressure masks: A literature review.
Sander B Kant, Carlo Colla, Eric van den Kerckhove and 1 others
PMID 30860443WHAT IT FOUND
Two of three small studies found significant scar improvement with transparent facial pressure masks, but one found no significant change.
Evidence is limited to observational studies with no control groups, so effectiveness is not confirmed.
Key findings
01Two of the three included studies reported statistically significant improvement in facial scars or flaps using subjective and objective measures.
02The third study showed a reduction in scar thickness that was not statistically significant.
03No severe adverse effects were reported, though problems with scar flattening around the mouth occurred in one study.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only three studies were included, all with small sample sizes (2 to 21 patients). All included studies were observational (Level 4 evidence), with no randomized controlled trials. Only one study included a control group; the others lacked comparison groups. Patient compliance with daily wearing time was not objectively measured in any study. Follow-up periods were short (1 to 25.7 months). The exact mechanism of action and optimal pressure levels for facial masks remain unclear.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support for this research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the significant improvements in two studies as proof of effectiveness. The evidence comes from very small, uncontrolled observational studies, and one study showed no significant change. This review confirms a lack of robust evidence, not a proven benefit.