Dermabrasion, Chemical Peels, and Acne Surgery

Number: 0251


Dermabrasion (see also CPB 0031 - Cosmetic Surgery)

Aetna considers dermabrasion using the conventional method of controlled surgical scraping (dermaplaning) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser for removal of superficial basal cell carcinomas and pre-cancerous actinic keratoses medically necessary when both of the following criteria are met:

  1. Conventional methods of removal such as cryotherapy, curettage, and excision, are impractical due to the number and distribution of the lesions; and
  2. The member has failed a trial of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (Efudex) or imiquimod (Aldara), unless contraindicated.

Aetna considers dermabrasion for scar revision cosmetic. Note: Exceptions to the cosmetic surgery exclusion may apply to revision of scars.  Please check benefit plan descriptions.

Aetna considers dermabrasion for removal of acne scars cosmetic.  Dermabrasion and microdermabrasion are considered experimental and investigational in treating active acne because it has been shown to increase inflammation associated with active acne. 

Other than the indications above, Aetna considers dermabrasion and microdermabrasion experimental and investigational because its effectiveness for other indications has not been established.  For example, Aetna considers dermabrasion and microdermabrasion experimental and investigational for the treatment of dyschromias, keloids, melasma, and vitiligo.

Chemical Peel (see also CPB 0031 - Cosmetic Surgery)

Aetna considers medium and deep chemical peels for actinic keratoses and other pre-malignant skin lesions medically necessary when members have 15 or more lesions, such that it becomes impractical to treat each lesion individually, and they have failed to adequately respond to treatment with topical 5-FU or imiquimod, unless contraindicated.  Aetna considers chemical peels not medically necessary for the treatment of non-malignant (simple) lesions.

Aetna considers chemical peels for active acne experimental and investigational because they have not been shown to be effective for that indication.

Aetna considers chemical peels for acne scarring, melasma, skin wrinkling or lentigines cosmetic.

Aetna considers chemical peels experimental and investigational for all other indications because their effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.

Acne Surgery

Aetna considers acne surgery such as marsupialization, opening or removal of multiple milia, comedones, cysts, pustules medically necessary for the treatment of acne.

Aetna considers cryoslush therapy (solid CO2 mixed with acetone) and liquid nitrogen therapy experimental and investigational for acne because their effectiveness for this indication has not been established.. 

Aetna considers intralesional injection of steroid medically necessary for the treatment of inflammatory nodulo-cystic acne.  Intralesional steroid injection is considered experimental and investigational for other types of acne (e.g., acne conglobate, acne fulminans, and pyoderma faciale; not an all-inclusive list) .



Dermabrasion is a dermatologic procedure that exerts its therapeutic effect by removing the epidermis and superficial dermis, allowing re-epithelialization from the underlying skin to occur.  Therefore, the technique is best used for superficial lesions of the face (Fitzpatrick et al, 1993). 

Standard dermabrasion uses a wire brush or diamond fraise (a stainless steel wheel on which diamond chips have been bonded) abraders to plane the skin whereas laser dermabrasion involves use of the argon laser, ultrapulse carbon dioxide (CO2) laser, or flashlamp-pumped pulsed dye laser to resurface the entire face, and has been used as an alternative to standard dermabrasion in treating patients with inactive acne with disfiguring scarring (Wheeland, 1995; Alster and McMeckin, 1996; Alster and West, 1996; Ruback and Schoenrock, 1997; Aronsson et al, 1997; Fulton, 1996).  Manufacturers of lasers cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for general skin resurfacing include Laser Industries, Coherent, Tissue Technologies, and Heraeus Surgical.

Dermabrasion is contraindicated in patients with active acne, as it may exacerbate skin inflammation (AAD, 1994; Arnold et al, 1990).  Acne is active when inflammation is present, and is treated with oral and topical antibiotics and retinoids (e.g., isotrentinoin (Accutane) or retinoic acid (Retin-A).  Dermabrasion conducted within 6 months of isotrentoin treatment has been associated with increased scarring (Fitzpatrick et al, 1993; AAD, 1994).  Coverage is not provided for dermabrasion for inactive acne (such as in removal of scars from chronic cystic acne) as dermabrasion is considered a cosmetic procedure for this indication.

Because of a lack of evidence of safety and effectiveness, dermabrasion of active acne is considered investigational.  Dermabrasion for post-acne scarring is considered a cosmetic procedure.

In an evidence-based review on microdermabrasion, Karimipour and colleagues (2009) stated that the role of microdermabrasion in the treatment of dyschromias and acne vulgaris is limited.

In an observational study, Garg and colleagues (2011) evaluated the usefulness of a less-painful method of repigmentation of vitiligo patches.  A total of 40 vitiligo patches in 22 consecutive patients with resistant vitiligo were treated with microdermabrasion followed by topical 5 % 5-FU.  One-third of the patches showed more than 50 % re-pigmentation, and 1/4 showed more than 75 % re-pigmentation.  Gratifying results were obtained in 7 patches after 1 session.  The authors concluded that microdermabrasion is adjunctive with topical 5 % 5-FU in the treatment of resistant vitiligo patches.  They stated that further well-controlled randomized trials are needed to validate the observations of the study.

Patel et al (2014) stated that atrophic scars cause significant patient morbidity.  While there is evidence to guide treatment, there does not appear to be a systematic review to analyze the effectiveness of treatment options.  These researchers retrieved all evidence relating to atrophic scar treatment and evaluated using the Clinical Evidence GRADE score in order to allow clinicians to make evidence-based treatment choices.  Searches were performed in Medline, EMBASE, CINHL and Cochrane to identify all English studies published evaluating treatment of atrophic scars on adults excluding journal letters.  Each study was allocated a GRADE score based on type of study, quality, dose-response, consistency of results and significance of results.  The end score allowed categorization of evidence into high, moderate, low or very low quality.  A total of 41 studies were retrieved from searches including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, retrospective analyses and case reports of which 7 % were allocated a high-quality score, 10 % a moderate score, 7 % a low score and 75 % a very low score.  Treatment modalities included ablative laser therapy, non-ablative laser therapy, autologous fat transfer, dermabrasion, chemical peels, injectables, subcision, tretinoin iontophoresis and combination therapy.  The authors concluded that there is a paucity of good-quality clinical evidence evaluating treatment modalities for atrophic scarring.  Evidence supports efficacy of laser, surgery and peel therapy.  Moreover, they stated that further biomolecular research is needed to identify targeted treatment options and more RCTs would make the evidence base for atrophic scar treatment more robust.

Chemical Peels

Chemical peels can be classified according to the type of "wounding" agent used and targeted depth of exfoliation (i.e., superficial, medium, deep).  Chemicals most often used in superficial peels are: 10 to 35 % trichloroacetic acid (TCA), resorcin, Jessner's solution, Retin-A, 5-FU, azelaic acid and alpha hydroxy acids (glycolic and lactic acid).  For medium peels 50 % TCA is used or lower concentrations of TCA in combination with Jessner's solution, 5-FU or carbon dioxide cryotherapy.  Baker's phenol or a 50 to 70 % solution of TCA are used for deep peels.  There is a paucity of data in the literature which compares the effectiveness of the various chemicals used in chemical peels.

Chemical peeling is a long-standing and accepted dermatologic technique.  However, clinical studies comparing the various types of chemical peels, and comparing chemical peels to other forms of therapy are unavailable.  The main coverage issue regarding the technique is the determination of whether the chemical peel is primarily cosmetic in nature.  Actinic keratoses are pre-malignant lesions and the medical necessity for their destruction/removal is not questioned.  However, a chemical peel for the treatment of actinic keratoses would only be appropriate when there are numerous lesions, making treatment of the individual lesions impractical.  For example, Morganroth and Leffell (1993) suggested that patients with less than 10 actinic keratoses should be treated with cryotherapy.

Additionally, curative treatment of actinic keratoses requires a full thickness necrosis of the epidermis.  Brodland (1988) estimated that this depth of necrosis would be unlikely with concentrations of TCA less than 35 %.  Therefore, coverage requests for superficial chemical peels as a treatment of actinic keratoses may actually represent primarily cosmetic procedures and should be carefully evaluated. 

Superficial chemical peels with alpha-hydroxy acids, so called fruit acids which include glycolic acid and lactic acid, have been used for the treatment of acne.  While low concentrations of glycolic acid can be administered by the patient at home, higher concentrations (50 to 70 %) are administered in the office. 

Guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) observe that both glycolic acid-based and salicylic acid-based peeling preparations have been used in the treatment of acne (Strauss et al, 2007).  The guidelines state: "There is very little evidence from clinical trials published in the peer-reviewed literature supporting the efficacy of peeling regimens. Further research on the use of peeling in the treatment of acne needs to be conducted in order to establish best practices for this modality."

Dreno and associates (2011) examined the evidence that supports the widespread use of superficial peels in the treatment of acne and acne-prone oily skin.  A search of the English language medical literature was performed to identify clinical trials that formally evaluated the use of chemical peeling in active acne.  Search of the literature revealed very few clinical trials of peels in acne (n = 13); a majority of these trials included small numbers of patients, were not controlled and were open label.  The evidence that is available does support the use of chemical peels in acne as all trials had generally favorable results despite differences in assessments, treatment regimens and patient populations.  Notably, no studies of chemical peels have used an acne medication as a comparator.  As not every publication specified whether or not concomitant acne medications were allowed, it is hard to evaluate clearly how many of the studies evaluated the effect of peeling alone.  This may be appropriate, however, given that few clinicians would use superficial chemical peels as the sole treatment for acne except in rare instances where a patient could not tolerate other treatment modalities.  The authors concluded that in the future, further study is needed to determine the best use of chemical peels in this indication.

Acne Surgery

The AAD found limited evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature that addresses the efficacy of comedo removal for the treatment of acne, despite its long-standing clinical use (Strauss et al, 2007).  The guidelines concluded, however, that "[i]t is ... the opinion of the work group that comedo removal may be helpful in the management of comedones resistant to other therapies.  Also, while it cannot affect the clinical course of the disease, it can improve the patient’s appearance, which may positively impact compliance with the treatment program."

The guidelines make no mention of the use of liquid nitrogen or cryoslush in the treatment of acne (Strauss et al, 2007).

Levine and Rasmussen (1983) evaluated the effectiveness of intralesional injections of corticosteroids in the therapy for nodulo-cystic acne.  Triamcinolone acetonide at a concentration of 0.63 mg/ml was as effective as a higher concentration of 2.5 mg/ml.  Betamethasone phosphate had little, if any, effect on nodulo-cystic acne lesions at concentrations of 3.0, 1.5, and 0.75 mg/ml, when compared with saline controls.  Mahajan and colleagues (2003) compared the effectiveness of intralesional triamcinolone with that of a combination of intralesional lincomycin and intralesional triamcinolone in nodulo-cystic acne.  A total of 10 patients of nodulo-cystic were injected with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (2.5 mg/ml), while 9 patients were given lincomycin hydrochloride (75 mg/ml) in addition to the intralesional triamcinolone.  They were followed-up 48 hours, 1 week and 1 month later.  At 1 week, 7 patients (70 %) treated with injection triamcinolone showed 66 % improvement, whereas all 9 (100 %) patients treated with lincomycin and triamcinolone showed 100 % improvement that was stable at 1 month.  The authors concluded that c combination of intralesional triamcinolone and lincomycin is superior to intralesional triamcinolone alone in the treatment of nodulo-cystic lesions of acne.

The AAD’s “Guidelines of care for acne vulgaris management” (Strauss et al, 2007) noted that intralesional corticosteroid injections are effective in the treatment of individual acne nodules; there is limited evidence regarding the benefit of physical modalities including glycolic acid peels and salicylic acid peels.  The guideline stated that “In the opinion of experts, the effect of intralesional injection with corticosteroids is a well- established and recognized treatment for large inflammatory lesions.  It has been found that patients receiving intralesional steroids for the treatment of cystic acne improved.  Systemic absorption of steroids may occur.  Adrenal suppression was observed in one study.  The injection of intralesional steroids may be associated with local atrophy.  Lowering the concentration and/or volume of steroid utilized may minimize these complications”.

An UpToDate review on “Light-based, adjunctive, and other therapies for acne vulgaris” (Dover and Batra, 2013) states that “Intralesional glucocorticoids are a treatment option for nodular acne lesions that might otherwise take weeks to resolve.  Treated lesions typically flatten in 48 to 72 hours, improving appearance and discomfort.  Triamcinolone acetonide, in concentrations of 1.25 to 2.5 mg/ml, is typically injected using a 30 gauge needle.  There is no high quality evidence demonstrating the efficacy of such injections, but extensive clinical experience supports their use.  Lower concentrations of triamcinolone may be as effective as higher concentrations and may reduce the risk of adverse effects; in one small randomized trial, lesions treated with 0.63, 1.25, or 2.5 mg/ml of triamcinolone acetonide exhibited similar improvement scores.  Patients should be cautioned regarding potential side effects including cutaneous atrophy, hypopigmentation, and telangiectasias”.

CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-10 Codes
Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes.   Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":
ICD-10 codes will become effective as of October 1, 2015 :
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
15780 Dermabrasion; total face
15781     segmental, face
15782     regional, other than face
15783     superficial, any site (e.g., tattoo removal)
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
C44.01, C44.111 - C44.119
C44.211 - C44.219, C44.310 - C44.319
C44.41, C44.510 - C44.519
C44.611 - C44.619, C44.711 - C44.719
C44.81, C44.91
Basal cell carcinoma
L57.0 Actinic keratosis
ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
L70.0 - L70.1
L70.3 - L70.9
Other acne
L70.2 Acne varioliformis
L91.0 Hypertrophic scar
L80 - L81.9 Vitiligo and other disorders of the skin
L90.5 Scar conditions and fibrosis of skin
Chemical peel, dermal and epidermal:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
15789 Chemical peel, facial; dermal
15793 Chemical peel, nonfacial; dermal
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
15788 Chemical peel, facial; epidermal
15792 Chemical peel, nonfacial; epidermal
17360 Chemical exfoliation for acne
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
C44.111 - C44.119
C44.211 - C44.219
C44.310 - C44.319
C44.510 - C44.519
C44.611 - C44.619
C44.711 - C44.719
Basal cell carcinoma
L57.0 Actinic keratosis
ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
D23.0 - D23.9 Other benign neoplasm of skin
L70.0 - L70.1
L70.3 - L70.9
Other acne
L70.2 Acne varioliformis
L81.0 - L81.9 Other disorders of pigmentation
L90.5 Scar conditions and fibrosis of skin
L90.8, L91.8 Other atrophic and hypertrophic disorders of skin [skin wrinkling]
Acne surgery:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
10040 Acne surgery (e.g., marsupialization, opening or removal of multiple milia, comedones, cysts, pustules)
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
L70.0 - L70.1
L70.3 - L70.9
Other acne
L70.2 Acne varioliformis
L71.0 - L71.9 Rosacea [acute]
L72.11 - L72.12 Pilar and trichodermal cyst [due to acne]
Cryoslush therapy:
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
17340 Cryotherapy (CO2, slush, liquid N2) for acne
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
17000 - 17250 Destruction, benign or premalignant lesions
17260 - 17286 Destruction, malignant lesions, any method
ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
L70.0 - L70.1
L70.3 - L70.9
Other acne
L70.2 Acne varioliformis
L71.0 - L71.9 Rosacea
L72.11 - L72.12 Pilar and trichodermal cyst
Intralesional Injection of Steroid:
CPT codes covered for indications listed in the CPB::
11900 Injection, intralesional; up to and including 7 lesions
11901 Injection, intralesional; more than 7 lesions
HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met::
J3301 Injection, triamcinolone acetonide, not otherwise specified, 10 mg
ICD-10 codes covered for indications listed in the CPB:
L70.8 Other acne

The above policy is based on the following references:


    1. Rice P, Brown RF, Lam DG, et al. Dermabrasion -- a novel concept in the surgical management of sulphur mustard injuries. Burns. 2000;26(1):34-40.
    2. Hopkins JD, Smith AW, Jackson IT. Adjunctive treatment of congenital pigmented nevi with phenol chemical peel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105(1):1-11.
    3. Jordan R, Cummins C, Burls A. Laser resurfacing of the skin for the improvement of facial acne scarring. DPHE Report No. 11. Birmingham:, UK: West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham (WMHTAC); 1998.
    4. Jordan R, Cummins C, Burls A. Laser resurfacing of the skin for the improvement of facial acne scarring: A systematic review of the evidence. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142(3):413-423.
    5. Solish N, Raman M, Pollack SV. Approaches to acne scarring: A review. J Cutan Med Surg. 1998;2 Suppl 3:24-32.
    6. Ayhan S, Baran CN, Yavuzer R, et al. Combined chemical peeling and dermabrasion for deep acne and posttraumatic scars as well as aging face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(4):1238-1246.
    7. Chiarello SE. CO2 laser for actinically damaged skin. Dermatol Surg. 1998;24(8):933-934.
    8. Grevelink JM, White VR. Concurrent use of laser skin resurfacing and punch excision in the treatment of facial acne scarring. Dermatol Surg. 1998;24(5):527-530.
    9. Weinstein C. Carbon dioxide laser resurfacing. Long-term follow-up in 2123 patients. Clin Plast Surg. 1998;25(1):109-130.
    10. Baker TM. Dermabrasion. As a complement to aesthetic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 1998;25(1):81-88.
    11. Orentreich N, Orentreich DS. Dermabrasion. As a complement to dermatology. Clin Plast Surg. 1998;25(1):63-80.
    12. Matarasso SL, Hanke CW, Alster TS. Cutaneous resurfacing. Dermatol Clin. 1997;15(4):569-582.
    13. Barnaby JW, Styles AR, Cockerell CJ. Actinic keratoses. Differential diagnosis and treatment. Drugs Aging. 1997;11(3):186-205.
    14. West TB. Laser resurfacing of atrophic scars. Dermatol Clin. 1997;15(3):449-457.
    15. Achauer BM. Lasers in plastic surgery: Current practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99(5):1442-1450.
    16. Mandy SH. Dermabrasion. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 1996;15(3):162-169.
    17. Coleman WP 3rd, Yarborough JM, Mandy SH. Dermabrasion for prophylaxis and treatment of actinic keratoses. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22(1):17-21.
    18. Le Pillouer PA, Casanova D. Scarring process after induced dermabrasion. Wound Repair Regen. 2002;10(2):113-115.
    19. Hruza GJ.  Dermabrasion.  Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2001;9(2):267-281, ix.
    20. Helfand M, Gorman AK, Mahon S, et al.  Actinic keratosis. Final Report. Evidence-Based Practice Centers.  Submitted to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under contract 290-97-0018, task order no. 6.  Portland, OR: Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-Based Practice Center; May 19, 2001. 
    21. Jordan RE, Cummins CL, Burls AJE, Seukeran DC. Laser resurfacing for facial acne scars. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):CD001866.
    22. Gupta AK, Inniss K, Wainwright R, et al. Interventions for actinic keratoses (Protocol for Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004415.
    23. Victor FC, Gelber J, Rao B. Melasma: A review. J Cutan Med Surg. 2004;8(2):97-102.
    24. Samuel M, Brooke RCC, Hollis S, Griffiths CEM. Interventions for photodamaged skin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD001782.
    25. Grimes PE. Microdermabrasion. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(9 Pt 2):1160-1165; discussion 1165.
    26. Bhalla M, Thami GP. Microdermabrasion: Reappraisal and brief review of literature. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32(6):809-814.
    27. Karimipour DJ, Karimipour G, Orringer JS. Microdermabrasion: An evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(1):372-377
    28. Garg T, Chander R, Jain A. Combination of microdermabrasion and 5-fluorouracil to induce repigmentation in vitiligo: An observational study. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(12):1763-766.
    29. Blome-Eberwein SA, Roarabaugh C, Gogal C, Eid S. Exploration of nonsurgical scar modification options: Can the irregular surface of matured mesh graft scars be smoothed with microdermabrasion? J Burn Care Res. 2012;33(3):e133-e140.
    30. Patel L, McGrouther D, Chakrabarty K. Evaluating evidence for atrophic scarring treatment modalities. JRSM Open. 2014;5(9):2054270414540139.
    31. Bhate K, Williams HC. What's new in acne? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2011-2012. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2014;39(3):273-277; quiz 277-278.
    32. Nguyen T. Dermatology procedures: Microdermabrasion and chemical peels. FP Essent. 2014;426:16-23.

    Chemical Peel

    1. Gutling M. Chemical peel--current possibilities and limits. Ther Umsch. 1999;56(4):182-187.
    2. Godin DA, Graham HD 3rd. Chemical peels. J La State Med Soc. 1998;150(11):513-520.
    3. Demas PN, Bridenstine JB, Braun TW. Pharmacology of agents used in the management of patients having skin resurfacing. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997;55(11):1255-1258.
    4. Giese SY, McKinney P, Roth SI, Zukowski M. The effect of chemosurgical peels and dermabrasion on dermal elastic tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(2):489-500.
    5. Steinsapir KD. The chemical peel. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1997;37(3):81-96.
    6. Rubin MG. A peeler's thoughts on skin improvement with chemical peels and laser resurfacing. Clin Plast Surg. 1997;24(2):407-409.
    7. Fulton JE Jr. Dermabrasion, chemabrasion, and laserabrasion. Historical perspectives, modern dermabrasion techniques, and future trends. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22(7):619-628.
    8. Branham GH, Thomas JR. Rejuvenation of the skin surface: Chemical peel and dermabrasion. Facial Plast Surg. 1996;12(2):125-133.
    9. Roenigk RK, Brodland DG. A primer of facial chemical peel. Dermatol Clin. 1993;11(2):349-359.
    10. Morganroth GS, Leffell DJ. Nonexcisional treatment of benign and premalignant cutaneous lesions. Clin Plast Surg. 1993;20:91-104.
    11. Van Scott EJ, Yu RJ. Alpha hydroxy acids: Procedures for use in clinical practice. Cutis. 1989;43:222-228.
    12. Humphreys TR, Werth V, Dzubow L, Kligman A. Treatment of photodamaged skin with trichloroacetic acid and topical tretinoin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;34(4):638-644.
    13. Tse Y, Ostad A, Lee HS, et al. A clinical and histologic evaluation of two medium-depth peels. Glycolic acid versus Jessner's trichloroacetic acid. Dermatol Surg. 1996;22(9):781-786.
    14. Witheiler DD, Lawrence N, Cox SE, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of Jessner's solution and 35% trichloroacetic acid vs 5% fluorouracil in the treatment of widespread facial actinic keratoses. Dermatol Surg. 1997;23(3):191-196.
    15. Brodland DG, Roenigk RK. Tricholoroacetic acid chemexfoliation (chemical peel) for extensive premalignant actinic damage of the face and scalp. Mayo Clin Proceed. 1988;63(9):887-896.
    16. No authors listed. TCA chemical peel found effective in treating premalignant skin lesions. Oncology (Huntingt). 1992;6(7):87-88.
    17. Jerant AF, Johnson JT, Sheridan CD, Caffrey TJ. Early detection and treatment of skin cancer. Am Fam Physician. 2000;62(2):357-368, 375-376, 381-382.
    18. Monheit GD. Medium-depth chemical peels. Dermatol Clin. 2001;19(3):413-425, vii.
    19. Gupta AK, Inniss K, Wainwright R, et al. Interventions for actinic keratoses (Protocol for Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD004415.
    20. Khunger N, Sarkar R, Jain RK. Tretinoin peels versus glycolic acid peels in the treatment of Melasma in dark-skinned patients. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30(5):756-760; discussion 760.
    21. Samuel M, Brooke RCC, Hollis S, Griffiths CEM. Interventions for photodamaged skin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD001782. 
    22. Montemarano AD. Melasma. eMedicine Dermatology Topic 260. Omaha, NE:; updated June 25, 2003. 
    23. Perras C. Imiquimod 5% cream for actinic keratosis. Issues in Emerging Health Technologies. Issue 61. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2004.
    24. Lee SH, Huh CH, Park KC, Youn SW. Effects of repetitive superficial chemical peels on facial sebum secretion in acne patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20(8):964-968. 
    25. Strauss JS, Krowchuk DP, Leyden JJ, et al. American Academy of Dermatology. Guidelines of care for acne vulgaris management.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56-651-653.
    26. Khunger N; IADVL Task Force. Standard guidelines of care for chemical peels. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2008;74 Suppl:S5-S12.
    27. Dreno B, Fischer TC, Perosino E, et al. Expert opinion: Efficacy of superficial chemical peels in active acne management -- what can we learn from the literature today? Evidence-based recommendations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25(6):695-704.
    28. Simonart T. Newer approaches to the treatment of acne vulgaris. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2012;13(6):357-364.
    29. Handog EB, Datuin MS, Singzon IA. Chemical peels for acne and acne scars in Asians: Evidence based review. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 20125(4):239-246.

    Acne Surgery, Liquid Nitrogen and Cryoslush

    1. Goette DK. Liquid nitrogen in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A comparative study. South Med J. 1973;66(10):1131-1132.
    2. Kaminsky A. Less common methods to treat acne. Dermatololgy. 2003;206:68-73.
    3. Frank SB. An update on acne vulgaris. Int J Dermatol. 1977;16(5):409-412.
    4. Landow K. Dispelling myths about acne. Postgrad Med. 1997;102(2):94-104.
    5. Kaya TI, Tursen U, Kokturk A, Ikizoglu G. An effective extraction technique for the treatment of closed macrocomedones. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29(7):741-744.
    6. Weinrauch L, Peled I, Hacham-Zadeh S, Wexler MR. Surgical treatment of severe acne conglobata. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1981;7(6):492-494.
    7. Shalita AR. Surgical procedures for the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Dermatol Surg. 1975;1(3):46-48.
    8. Strauss JS, Krowchuk DP, Leyden JJ, et al. American Academy of Dermatology. Guidelines of care for acne vulgaris management.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(4):651-663.
    9. Levine RM, Rasmussen JE. Intralesional corticosteroids in the treatment of nodulocystic acne. Arch Dermatol. 1983;119(6):480-481.
    10. Mahajan BB, Garg G. Therapeutic efficacy of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide plus lincomycin in the treatment of nodulocystic acne. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003;69(3):217-219.
    11. Dover JS, Batra P. Light-based, adjunctive, and other therapies for acne vulgaris. UpToDate [online serial]. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; reviewed January 2013.

You are now leaving the Aetna website.

Links to various non-Aetna sites are provided for your convenience only. Aetna Inc. and its subsidiary companies are not responsible or liable for the content, accuracy, or privacy practices of linked sites, or for products or services described on these sites.

Continue >