In Urology, DERMAFREEZE is a powerful resource for the treatment of HPV lesions.
Lesions caused by HPV (Human Papillomavirus) are a frequent problem in Urology, especially among sexually active men. These lesions can appear in the genital and perianal region, varying in appearance and severity.
Cryotherapy with DERMAFREEZE is one of the most widely used treatments for lesions caused by HPV in Urology. The method consists of applying a cryogenic agent to freeze and destroy infected cells, promoting the elimination of the lesions.
The DERMAFREEZE procedure uses extremely low temperatures to cause cell necrosis and desquamation of the lesion. The cryogenic agent is applied directly to genital warts using applicators, generating a thermal effect that destroys the affected tissue.
DERMAFREEZE is a safe and effective alternative for small and moderate lesions, especially in patients who do not tolerate or do not want topical treatments such as Imiquimod or Podophyllin.
Advantages of Using DERMAFREEZE
- Minimally invasive procedure performed in the office
- Excellent cost/benefit ratio
- Low risk of scarring
- Fast recovery, allowing return to normal activities in a few days
- Can be repeated until the lesions are completely eliminated
See below the study developed by Prof. Dr. Helio Miot on the effectiveness of Dermafreeze in the treatment of anogenital warts.
EVALUATION OF TWO CRYOSURGERY METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANOGENITAL WARTS IN IMMUNOCOMPETENT PATIENTS
Author: Hélio A. Miot
Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy of FMB-Unesp – Botucatu – SP
INTRODUCTION
Anogenital warts (AWV) are sexually transmitted diseases caused by HPV that are frequently encountered in the dermatologist’s office. The therapeutic modalities used include electrosurgery, laser therapy, causotherapy, interferon, podophyllotoxin, 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod and cryosurgery.
The most commonly used cryosurgery is liquid nitrogen (NL) spray, but other cryogens have been developed with portability and reduced operating costs, including fluoridated gases (FGE).
The author intends to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of two cryosurgery systems in the treatment of AWV.
METHODS
Thirty-four adult male patients with CAV without evidence of immunosuppression were selected and randomly allocated into two treatment groups: NL and GFE gas, under a regimen of 10 seconds of NL spray and 15 seconds of GFE (Dermafreeze®) using a containment cone (Figures 1 and 2).
The absence of acetowhite lesions on penoscopy was verified in 14 days for comparison between the groups.
An analysis by intention to treat was performed (patients who failed treatment were considered as treatment failure).
RESULTS
All patients had penile warts, were HIV-negative and had no clinical evidence of immunosuppression. In each group, only 12 of the 17 patients returned for evaluation after 14 days.
There was no statistically significant difference between the distribution of the number of CAV per patient before treatment between the groups (p=0.71 Mann-Whitney) (Figure 3).
The group treated with NL had 59 treated lesions, with an average resolution of 46%, the group treated with GFE had 48 lesions, with an average resolution of 58% (Figure 3).
Both modalities significantly reduced the number of anogenital warts within their groups (p<0.01 Wilcoxon), but when compared with each other, they did not show a significant difference (p=0.48 Mann-Whitney).
If we only consider the patients who returned for reassessment, the average therapeutic efficacy was 65% for the NL group and 83% for the GFE group (p=0.30 Mann-Whitney), or if we consider the patients who did not return as resolved, the comparison is: 78% and 89% (p=0.41 Mann-Whitney).
There was adequate tolerability between the groups, with no infection or other complications after the procedures. Some patients who had already been treated with NL spray reported less pain with GFE.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of cryosurgery with NL and GFE in the treatment of VAG, according to the protocol tested. Further controlled studies should be conducted in order to determine the best indications and protocols for the use of GFE in the treatment of skin lesions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Hoffmann NE; Bischof JC: the cryobiology of cryosurgical injury. Urology. 2002; 60:40-9.
2. Caballero MartinezF et all: Cutaneos cryosurgery in family medicine: dimethil ether-propane spray versus liquid nitrogen. Aten Primaria.
1996; 18:211-6.
3. Dawber R: Cryosurgery: Unapproved uses, dosages, or indications. Clin Dermatol. 2002; 20: 563-70.
4. Carr J, Gyorfi T. Human papillomavirus. Epidemiology, transmission, and pathogenesis. Clin Lab Med. 2000;20:235-55.
5. Oriel JD . Natural history of genital warts . Br J Vener Dis 1971 ; 47: 1–13 .
6. Jones SK, Darville JM . Transmission of virus particles by cryotherapy and multi-use caustic pencils: a problem to dermatologists? Br J
Dermatol 1989 ; 121 : 481–6 .
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The GFE gas vials (Dermafreeze®) were donated by the distributor, who did NOT interfere in the selection of patients, treatment indication, data analysis or composition of the text.
