Cryogenic treatment of warts
DeviceTreatment of common and plantar wart by cryotherapy treatment.
NCT Number: NCT03129373
The present study was set-up to evaluate clinical efficacy of Pixie® cryogenic pen versus two comparator cryogenic products (Wartner® and Wortie®) for the treatment of common and plantar warts.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me4 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
The use of cryotherapy has been long known to be effective against warts. The indications for Pixie® are in line with the indications presented in the collected literature data, as well as with the indications of equivalent devices.
The benefits of warts treatment without the use of chemicals are clearly evidenced. The treatment period is much shorter (one treatment compared to daily application of keratinolytics or fluorouracil, over a period of a few weeks). The cryogen therapy application through a conic tip is much more precise than with chemical substances. Chemical substance application is leading to more side effects of the surrounding skin (typical for chemical treatment are pain, blistering, ulceration and contact dermatitis).
The Instructions for Use were developed in line with these data and are therefore covering all hazards known up to the date of this report.
Based on these data the product received its CE-mark approval
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Treatment of common and plantar wart by cryotherapy treatment.
Time frame: After 1 treatment (approximately 15 days after the first treatment)
Time frame: 1 treatment (day 0), 2 treatments (day 15), 3 treatments (day 29)
Time frame: 1 treatment (day 0), 2 treatments (day 15), 3 treatments (day 29)
Measurement immediately after treatment, with a tape measure device of the frostbite on the skin, created by cryothereapy treatment (measure in cm)
Time frame: Before treatment (day 0 before treatment), after 1 treatment (day 15), after 2 treatments (day 29), after 3 treatments (day 45)
Macrophotographs taken with a Nikon D90 apparatus and a standardization device for the repositionning
Time frame: Before treatment (day 0 before treatment), after 1 treatment (day 15), after 2 treatments (day 29), after 3 treatments (day 45)
Evaluation of the skin color after treatment.
Time frame: On days 0, 3, 15, 29 and 45
Time frame: After 1 treatment (day 15), after 2 treatments (day 29), after 3 treatments (day 45)
Oystershell NV
Industry
Clinical Trial to Demonstrate the Comparative Efficacy of a Cryogenic Treatment (Medical Device) In Common and Plantar Warts Management
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02231879
Agammaglobulinemia, Agranulocytosis
Bethesda, Maryland, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07329907
DNA Virus Infections, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
Banhā, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt
View Trial DetailsNCT05087849
Communicable Diseases, Condyloma
San Francisco, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05799157
Common Wart, DNA Virus Infections
Fort Smith, Arkansas, United States
View Trial Details