Many people choose skincare treatments such as mesotherapy and microneedling to improve the appearance of their skin.
It is essential to understand the side effects, risks, and different aspects of these treatments.
This article aims to provide a comparison between mesotherapy and microneedling to help individuals make informed decisions.
We will explore side effects, risks, recovery time, suitability for various skin types, techniques used, and pain levels associated with each treatment.
Mesotherapy
Mesotherapy is a minimally invasive cosmetic procedure originating from France.
It entails injecting a combination of vitamins, enzymes, hormones, and plant extracts into the skin to rejuvenate it.
This treatment is commonly used for addressing wrinkles, fine lines, pigmented skin, and overall improvement in skin quality.
Multiple micro-injections are administered with a fine needle, leading to its recent popularity due to precise targeting and minimal downtime.
Microneedling
Microneedling, also known as collagen induction therapy, involves using fine needles to create micro-injuries that stimulate collagen and elastin production.
It is effective in treating scars, wrinkles, and large pores, with quick recovery times and high efficacy.
Side Effects
While both treatments share similar side effects, there are some differences to consider.
Commonly reported side effects include bruising, swelling, redness, and sensitivity.
Risks are similar but may vary depending on skin type and sensitivity, as well as the expertise of the practitioner.
Risks and Recovery
Possible risks include infection, allergic reactions, and skin discoloration, which can be mitigated with proper aftercare.
Although rare, long-term risks like scarring and sensitivity may occur.
Both treatments offer quick recovery times, with minor swelling and redness, influenced by factors such as needle depth and skin type.
Suitability and Techniques
Mesotherapy is suitable for different skin types and can target specific concerns such as aging skin, dull complexion, and hydration needs.
Microneedling is versatile and effective for various skin types, focusing on improving skin texture and tone.
Special considerations are necessary for inflammatory skin conditions when choosing between the treatments.
Procedures
Mesotherapy involves targeted treatment through fine needle injections, while microneedling stimulates collagen production and regeneration with micro-injuries.
Both treatments require skilled practitioners for optimal results and safety.
Pain Levels
Pain levels vary based on individual tolerance and the substances used during the treatments.
Topical anesthetics can help manage pain, with microneedling causing mild discomfort of varying intensity.
Conclusion
Mesotherapy and microneedling offer unique benefits for skin rejuvenation, with individual considerations such as skin concerns and pain tolerance influencing treatment choices.
Consulting a skincare professional is recommended for safe and effective treatment, ensuring an informed decision tailored to your skincare needs.
Author Information
Authored by Vanessa Ngan, Staff Writer, 2005. Updated by Dr. Ebtisam Elghblawi, Dermatologist, Tripoli, Libya. DermNet Editor in Chief: A/Prof Amanda Oakley, Dermatologist, Hamilton, New Zealand. October 2018.
Mesotherapy for Various Conditions
Although mesotherapy is not FDA-approved for body contouring, it is a non-surgical method for fat removal and body sculpting.
Effective for weight loss and cellulite reduction, mesotherapy has gained popularity in Europe and South America, but is relatively new in the US and New Zealand.
The technique involves injecting substances into the fat tissue under the skin, with benefits including collagen stimulation, hydration, and improved skin texture.
What are the side effects of mesotherapy?
Mesotherapy is believed to have minimal side effects, but research is needed on its impact on fat cells and organs.
Mesotherapy — yes or no?
Although mesotherapy lacks scientific evidence and standardization, it offers advantages such as a non-surgical approach, minimal pain, and costs comparable to liposuction.
Liposuction is a proven method for fat removal, highlighting the potential of mesotherapy in this area.
A review of mesotherapy for musculoskeletal disorders has shown promising safety and efficacy, with studies comparing its effectiveness to other treatments following strict guidelines.
Methods
Research on mesotherapy included a substantial number of records and articles, with selected studies showing a reduction in pain and mild side effects.
Results
Mesotherapy proved effective for local pain relief, but further standardized trials are needed to assess its full potential.
Conclusion
Comparisons with systemic therapy indicate mesotherapy’s superiority in treating musculoskeletal disorders, highlighting the need for more standardized protocols.
Keywords: mesotherapy, musculoskeletal disorder, injection
Musculoskeletal conditions impact millions worldwide, emphasizing the importance of proper treatment for maintaining independence and quality of life.
Effective pain management is crucial for patients with musculoskeletal diseases, with local therapies like mesotherapy offering a safer alternative to systemic treatments.
Further research is needed to establish standardized treatment protocols and improve outcomes for individuals with musculoskeletal syndromes.
Mesotherapy, with its microinjection technique and slow release mechanism, has shown promise as a reliable treatment option, particularly for localized musculoskeletal pain.
Careful attention to safety protocols and qualified personnel can enhance the efficacy of mesotherapy in addressing these conditions.
This study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of mesotherapy in musculoskeletal disorders, highlighting the need for continued research and standardization in this field.
For safety and efficacy in mesotherapy treatments, adherence to research guidelines and quality practices is essential to ensure positive outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal issues.
| Research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Total points |
|---|
| Study by Monticone et al. in 2004 (35) |
| ✗ |
| ✗ |
| ✗ |
| ✗ |
| ✗ |
| ✗ |
| 5 |
| According to Yang et al. in 2018 (39) |
| × |
| × |
| × |
| × |
| × |
| × |
| × |
| 6 |
Welcome to PEDro, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database.
Criteria used by PEDro include the following: eligibility criteria, random allocation, concealed allocation, baseline comparability, blind subjects, blind therapists, blind assessors, adequate follow-up, intention to-treat analysis, between-group comparisons, and provision of point estimates and variability.
*Authors assign a PEDro score
Study selection
Out of 16,253 studies initially found, 15,322 were excluded due to various reasons such as duplication, non-RCT design, non-English languages, and lack of full text. Out of the remaining 931 studies, 919 did not meet the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment based on the PEDro checklist, 4 out of 12 selected studies were excluded, leaving 8 for systematic review. Among them, 7 were analyzed for meta-analysis due to missing data in one study by Kocak (34).
The level of evidence for these studies, according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Level of Evidence is categorized as II (https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/). The review process is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flow diagram of the study.
Data extraction
Using a standard form, two reviewers independently extracted data from the selected studies. Information such as author, year of publication, participant characteristics, intervention details for both experimental and control groups, outcome measures, and follow-up duration were collected.
Assessment of risk of bias
The level of evidence from the included studies was assessed as per OCEBM guidelines. Methodological quality of data acquisition was evaluated by two authors using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for Diagnostic Test Studies (CASP; http://www.casp-uk.net/checklists). In case of disagreement, additional opinions were sought.
Statistical analysis
Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis, and changes in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) values before and after mesotherapy were presented in Table II.
Table II.
Comparison of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores before and after treatment
| Investigation | Participants who underwent Mesotherapy | Participants who did not undergo Mesotherapy | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants, n | Initial Assessment | Follow-up Evaluation | Number of Subjects, n | Baseline Data | Post-intervention Results | ||||||||
| Study by Costantino and colleagues in 2011 | 42 | 90.00 ± 10.0 | 32.5 ± 7.5 | 42 | 85.0 ± 13.0 | 35.5 ± 5.5 |
| Study by Monticone et al. in 2004 showed that… | 11 | 70.0 | 2.0 | 11 | 70.0 | 70.0 |
| Study | Participants | Age (years) | Height (cm) | Participants | Weight (kg) | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research by Yang and colleagues in 2018 | 18 | 70.0 ± 12.0 | 20.0 ± 12.0 | 18 | 75.0 ± 15.0 | 50.0 ± 13.0 |
The mean difference was utilized as a measure of effect size, along with a fixed effects model, to compute pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q statistic and I2, with I2 exceeding 75% indicating high heterogeneity.
Potential publication bias was examined through a contour-enhanced funnel plot displaying the effect size against its standard error. All statistical analyses and forest plots were generated using Stata 12.0 and RevMan 5.3. Statistical significance was determined at p-values.
Fig. 2: Mesotherapy treatment compared to the control group. 95% CI denotes the 95% confidence interval. Kocak (2019) was omitted due to missing data.
Fig. 3: Funnel plot depicting the mean difference (MD) and size effect (SE) of the VAS. Most studies, with the exception of one (Moretti et al., 2005), reported consistent results favoring mesotherapy.
RESULTS: Description of selected studies can be found in Table III and Table IV. Four trials utilized mesotherapy for treating low back pain, with or without radicular pain.
Table III.: Overview of the studies included.
| Research | Average Age (Standard Deviation) | Number of Participants | Reason for Study | Treatment Group: Mesotherapy | Control Group | Results of Study | Follow-up Period | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research conducted by Costantino and colleagues in 2011 | Average age of participants: 53.5 (standard deviation 2.64) | Total number of participants: 84 (42/42) | Subjects experienced low back pain within a 2-week period | Treatment involved mesotherapy with lidocaine, ketoprofen, and MP administered paravertebrally and along the sciatic nerve | Control group received systemic therapy | Prescribed oral ketoprofen, MP, and esomeprazole for systemic treatment | Assessment of pain levels and functional ability was conducted | Follow-up period lasted for 6 months |
| Saad et al., 2019 (33) | Mean age 42.8 years (SD 8.5) | Equal number of males and females (25/25) | Participants experienced lower back discomfort along with radiating symptoms | Treatment involved mesotherapy using ketoprofen, lidocaine, and saline injections in various locations such as spine, surrounding muscles, and sciatic nerve | Therapy applied to the entire system | Ketoprofen administered orally | Regular evaluations of pain levels and daily activities | Follow-up conducted after 3 months |
| Study conducted by Kocak in 2019 (34) | Experimental group: 31.0 Control group: 20.0 | Total participants: 86 (38 in experimental group, 48 in control group) | Focus of the study: Acute musculoskeletal injury | Intervention: Mesotherapy using tiocolchicoside, lidocaine, and tenoxicam Targeting specific pain zones |
Treatment approach: Systemic therapy | Administration of infused dexketoprofen | Evaluation method: Pain assessment | Assessment carried out at different time intervals |
| In a study conducted by Monticone et al. in 2004 (35) | 44.0 | 22 patients (11/11) | Suffering from low back pain due to sacro-iliac dysfunction | Treatment with NSAIDs specifically for sacro-iliac pain in the sacro-iliac region | Received physical therapy | Used He-Ne laser therapy for sacro-iliac pain | Underwent pain assessment and other diagnostic tests | Follow-up conducted at 6 months and 12 months |
| Study conducted by Moretti et al., in 2005 showed that… |
| 61.0% of the participants experienced relief from shoulder and limb pain |
| 123 out of 200 patients reported improvement, with 40 showing complete relief and 83 partial relief |
| The treatment involved mesotherapy using a combination of ketoprofen, betamethasone, lidocaine, and saline injections in the painful areas |
| In addition, ozone therapy was also administered |
| Subsequent pain assessment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment |
| The results showed improvement in pain levels after the therapy |
| Research conducted by Senara et al. in 2015 (38) |
| Patients’ average age: 47.2 |
| Sample size: 120 (40/40/40) |
| Condition studied: Chronic low back pain |
| Intervention: Mesotherapy using lidocaine, ketoprofen, and MP Different treatments for different participant groups |
| Control group treatment: Systemic therapy |
| Medications administered: Oral ketoprofen, methylprednisolone, and esomeprazole |
| Outcome measures: Assessment of pain levels and functioning |
| Follow-up period: 6 months |
Table IV.
Exploring the safety and effectiveness of specific research findings
| Research | Study durations | Pain comparison with control group | Functional improvement compared to control group | Additional findings | Adverse events reported in mesotherapy | Severe adverse events associated with mesotherapy |
|---|
| The study by Costantino and colleagues in 2011 (26) |
| Follow-up |
| Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain |
| Changes in pain levels |
| – |
| Some patients experienced temporary bleeding and signs of inflammation, which resolved within a few days |
| No complications reported |
| Saad et al., 2019 (33) | AT |
The reduction or increase in value compared to the control group.
Similar results between the experimental and control groups.
Enhancement or deterioration in value when compared to the control group.
Significant differences as per statistical analysis.
AT: post-treatment; h: hours; KOOS: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; min: minutes; NDI: Neck Disability Index; ODQ: Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire; PGIC: Patient Global Impression of Change; RMDQ: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; ROM: range of motion; VAS: visual analogue scale.
Four additional studies focused on patients with non-specific neck pain (39), pes anserine tendinopathy in knee osteoarthritis (37), tendinopathies and entrapment syndromes of the limbs (36), and acute musculoskeletal pain (34).
Exclusion criteria in the studies involved severe non-musculoskeletal pathologies, injuries in multiple areas, serious health conditions, neurological disorders, pregnancy, hypersensitivity to injections, ongoing treatment, recent surgeries, psychological issues, or therapy. The participants’ average age varied. Mesotherapy protocols differed in terms of medications used, administration method, frequency, and total sessions. Usually, the treatment involved NSAIDs, corticosteroids, pain relievers, and muscle relaxants, administered intradermally or subcutaneously, using various techniques and needle sizes. Control groups in the trials received different treatments, follow-up assessments varied, and adverse events were mostly mild. Most studies reported a decrease in pain levels and improved functionality post-mesotherapy. Mesotherapy seems to be a safe and effective approach for musculoskeletal conditions, although more research is required to identify the best protocols and techniques.
Senara et al. compared conventional mesotherapy, bee venom mesotherapy, and systemic therapy for musculoskeletal issues. The focus was on conventional mesotherapy involving NSAIDs, local anesthesia, and glucocorticoids. Bee venom mesotherapy exhibited similar effectiveness to conventional mesotherapy.
Low back pain, with or without radiculopathy, was the most common condition treated. Other studies examined various musculoskeletal issues like neck pain, bursitis, injuries, tendinopathies, and entrapment syndromes.
Control groups received diverse treatments such as systemic therapy, laser therapy, and oxygen-ozone therapy. Results demonstrated a significant reduction in pain, especially in cases of low back pain and neck pain.
Overall, mesotherapy showed promising results in alleviating pain and enhancing functionality. Further research is necessary to establish standardized protocols and to compare with other treatment options.
Mesotherapy proved to be safe with minor side effects like nausea, fatigue, and local reactions. It was more effective than systemic therapy in improving pain and functionality related to neck pain and low back pain.
Utilizing mesotherapy for managing musculoskeletal conditions could offer timely access to rehabilitation services, improving daily activities. This treatment could be a viable option for handling musculoskeletal issues.
The studies involved diverse testing procedures and treatments, emphasizing the need to account for the heterogeneity of the included studies. More research, particularly utilizing robust methodologies and standardized protocols, is crucial to draw precise conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of mesotherapy.
- Veihelmann A. Spinal injections, Epidural neurolysis and denervation for specific low back pain and sciatica. Z Orthop Unfall 2019; 157: 417–425.
- Bos EME, Hollmann MW, Lirk P. Safety and efficacy of epidural analgesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2017; 3: 736–742.
- Wehling P, Evans C, Wehling J, Maixner W. Effectiveness of intra-articular therapies in osteoarthritis: a literature review. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2017; 9: 183–196.
- Brinks A, Koes BW, Volkers ACV, Verhaar JAN, Bierma-Zeinstra SAM. Adverse effects of extra-articular corticosteroid injections: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskel Dis 2010; 11: 206.
- Pistor M. Review of new properties of topical procaine in human pathology. Presse Med 1958; 66: 999–1000.
- Mammucari M, Gatti A, Maggiori S, Bartoletti CA, Sabato AF. Mesotherapy, definition, rationale and clinical role: a consensus report from the Italian Society of Mesotherapy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2011; 15: 682–694.
- Costantino C, Marangio E, Coruzzi, G. Mesotherapy versus systemic therapy in acute low back pain: a randomized trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2011; 2011: 317183.
- Plachouri K M, Georgiou S. Mesotherapy: safety profile and management of complications. J Cosmet Dermatol 2019; 18: 1601–1605.
- Herreros FO, Moraes AM, Velho PE. Mesotherapy: a bibliographical review. An Bras Dermatol 2011; 86: 96–101.
- Mammucari M, Gatti A, Maggiori S, Sabato AF. Role of mesotherapy in musculoskeletal pain: opinions from the Italian society of mesotherapy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2012; 2012: 436959.
- Mammucari M, Vellucci R, Mediati DR, Migliore A, Cuomo A, Maggiori E, et al. What is mesotherapy? Recommendations from an international consensus? Trends Med 2014; 14: 1–10.
- Paolucci T, Bellomo RG, Centra MA, Giannandrea N, Pezzi L, Saggini R. Mesotherapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain in rehabilitation: the state of the art. J Pain Res 2019; 12: 2391–2401.
- Pitzurra M, Marconi P. Immunogenesis and mesotherapy: the immunoresponse to antigens inoculated intradermally, Giornale di Mesoterapia 1981; 1: 9–14.
- Saad EA, El Nouby FHH, El Fayomi G, Elaziz Fehr AA, Fathy NA. Comparative study between mesotherapy and systemic NSAIDs in chronic low back pain with sciatica. Egypt J Hospital Med 2019; 74: 534–1543.
- Kocak AO Intradermal mesotherapy versus systemic therapy in musculoskeletal pain treatment: a prospective randomized study. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37: 2061–2065.
- Monticone M, Barbarino A, Testi C, Arzano S, Moschi A, Negrini S. Symptomatic efficacy of stabilizing treatment versus laser therapy for sub-acute low back pain with positive tests for sacroiliac dysfunction: a randomised clinical controlled trial with 1 year follow-up. Eura Medicophys 2004. 40: 263–268.
- Moretti B, Lanzisera R, Sisti G L, Moretti L, Patella S, Patella V, et al. O2-O3 therapy in tendinopathies and entrapment syndromes. Rivista Italiana di Ossigeno-Ozonoterapia 2005; 4: 20–29.
- Saggini R, Di Stefano A, Dodaj I, Scarcello L, Bellomo RG. Pes anserine bursitis in symptomatic osteoarthritis patients: a mesotherapy treatment study. J Altern Complement Med 2015; 21: 480–484.
- Senara, SH, Abdel Wahed WY. THU0600 value of mesotherapy for chronic low back pain treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Rheumat Dis 2015; 74 (Suppl 2): 418.2–418.
- Yang XN, Geng ZS, Zhang XL, Zhang YH, Wang XL, Zhang XB, et al. Single intracutaneous injection of local anesthetics and steroids alleviates acute nonspecific neck pain: a CONSORT- perspective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Medicine 2018; 97: e11285.
Articles from Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine are provided here courtesy of MJS Publishing