Cosmetic Dermatology

Interventions for the Treatment of Stretch Marks: A Systematic Review

Cutis. 2014 August;94(2):66-72

References

1. Viennet C, Bride J, Cohen-Letessier A, et al. Mechanical behavior of fibroblasts included in collagen lattices. J Soc Biol. 2001;195:427-430.

2. Chang AL, Agredano YZ, Kimball AB. Risk factors associated with striae gravidarum. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51:881-885.

3. Salter SA, Kimball AB. Striae gravidarum. Clin Dermatol. 2006;24:97-100.

4. Elsaie ML, Baumann LS, Elsaaiee LT. Striae distensae (stretch marks) and different modalities of therapy: an update. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:563-573.

5. Singh G, Kumar LP. Striae distensae. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2005;71:370-372.

6. Jiménez GP, Flores F, Berman B, et al. Treatment of striae rubra and striae alba with the 585-nm pulsed-dye laser. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:362-365.

7. Watson RE, Parry EJ, Humphries JD, et al. Fibrillin microfibrils are reduced in skin exhibiting striae distensae. Br J Dermatol. 1998;138:931-937.

8. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Oxford, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed July 8, 2014.

9. Draelos ZD, Gold MH, Kaur M, et al. Evaluation of an onion extract, Centella asiatica, and hyaluronic acid cream in the appearance of striae rubra. Skinmed. 2010;8:80-86.

10. Kang S, Kim KJ, Griffiths CE, et al. Topical tretinoin (retinoic acid) improves early stretch marks. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132:519-526.

11. Morganti P, Palombo P, Fabrizi G, et al. Biweekly in-office injectable treatment of striae distensae vs a long-term daily use of topical vitamin C. J Appl Cosmetol. 2001;19:107-112.

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;17:928-933.

13. Pribanich S, Simpson FG, Held B, et al. Low-dose tretinoin does not improve striae distensae: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Cutis. 1994;54:121-124.

14. Summers B, Lategan M. The effect of a topically-applied cosmetic oil formulation on striae distensae. SA Fam Pract. 2009;51:332-336.

15. Tay YK, Kwok C, Tan E. Non-ablative 1,450-nm diode laser treatment of striae distensae. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38:196-199.

16. Yang YJ, Lee GY. Treatment of striae distensae with nonablative fractional laser versus ablative CO₂fractional laser: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Dermatol. 2011;23:481-489.

17. Joshi J, Donga SB, Pandya MA. A comparative study of Savarnakara Ghrita and Savarnakara Cream in the management of Kikkisa w.s.r. to Striae Gravidarum. Ayu. 2008;29:260-265.

Risk of Bias

The risk of bias in methodology was evaluated for all 8 RCTs and the judgments were given for each domain (Figure 2). All the included studies claimed to be RCTs, but only 37.5% (3/8) of them used adequate randomizations, which were from a including computer-generated code,¹⁰ a table of randomized numbers,¹³ or the Microsoft Excel RND function (from the author by e-mail).¹⁴ The randomization methods in the other 5 studies were unclear. Allocation concealment was adequate in 1 trial¹³ but was unclear in the others. Three trials were double-blinded with the participants and outcome assessors blinded^10,13,16; in 2 of these studies investigators also were blinded.^10,13 There were 5 single-blinded trials; in 3 of these trials the outcome assessors were blinded^12,14,15 and 1 was investigator-blinded.⁹ The other study was stated to be single-blinded but with no further detail.¹¹ Due to the nature of the experimental design in 2 of the trials^12,15 (ie, effects of laser therapy compared to topical treatment or no therapy), participants could not be blinded to treatment types; however, participants were blinded in 1 trial that compared different types of lasers.¹⁶ Investigators from all studies reported participants who did not complete the trial or were lost to follow-up, ranging from 0% to 65.6%. Two trials reported no loss of follow-up.^11,12 Most trials had losses less than 20% except Pribanich et al¹³ who reported a loss of 65.6% of participants. One trial included a full analysis set,⁹ and none of the studies included an intention-to-treat analysis.

^{Figure 2. Risk of bias summary based on judgments about each risk of bias domain for each study. indicates low risk of bias; ?, unclear risk of bias; -, high risk of bias.}

The overall risk of bias was assessed for each study and none could be categorized as low risk. Six studies had 1 or more domains assessed as high risk of bias and were classified as high risk of bias.^9,11-15 The remaining 2 studies without high-risk domains had one or more domains assessed as unclear^10,16 and were therefore considered to be at unclear risk of bias overall.