The British journal of dermatology · 2007
Variable pulsed light is less painful than light-emitting diodes for topical photodynamic therapy of actinic keratosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Babilas P, Knobler R, Hummel S, Gottschaller C, Maisch T, Koller M, Landthaler M, Szeimies R-M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) of actinic keratosis (AK) using methylaminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective and safe treatment option, but the procedure is painful.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and pain associated with variable pulsed light (VPL), a prospective, randomized, controlled split-face study was performed.
METHODS: Topical MAL-PDT was conducted in 25 patients with AK (n = 238) who were suitable for two-sided comparison. After incubation with MAL, irradiation was performed with a light-emitting diode (LED) (50 mW cm(-2); 37 J cm(-2)) vs. VPL (80 J cm(-2), double pulsed at 40 J cm(-2), pulse train of 15 impulses each with a duration of 5 ms, 610-950 nm filtered hand piece) followed by re-evaluation up to 3 months.
RESULTS: The pain during and after therapy was significantly lower with VPL irradiation [t (d.f. = 24) = 4.42, P < 0.001]. The overall mean +/- SD infiltration and keratosis score at 3 months after treatment was 0.86 +/- 0.71 (LED system) vs. 1.05 +/- 0.74 (VPL device) (no statistically significant difference; P = 0.292). Patient satisfaction following both treatment modalities did not significantly differ at the 3-month follow up (P = 0.425).
CONCLUSIONS: VPL used for MAL-PDT is an efficient alternative for the treatment of AK that results in complete remission and cosmesis equivalent to LED irradiation but causes significantly less pain.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and pain associated with variable pulsed light (VPL), a prospective, randomized, controlled split-face study was performed.
METHODS: Topical MAL-PDT was conducted in 25 patients with AK (n = 238) who were suitable for two-sided comparison. After incubation with MAL, irradiation was performed with a light-emitting diode (LED) (50 mW cm(-2); 37 J cm(-2)) vs. VPL (80 J cm(-2), double pulsed at 40 J cm(-2), pulse train of 15 impulses each with a duration of 5 ms, 610-950 nm filtered hand piece) followed by re-evaluation up to 3 months.
RESULTS: The pain during and after therapy was significantly lower with VPL irradiation [t (d.f. = 24) = 4.42, P < 0.001]. The overall mean +/- SD infiltration and keratosis score at 3 months after treatment was 0.86 +/- 0.71 (LED system) vs. 1.05 +/- 0.74 (VPL device) (no statistically significant difference; P = 0.292). Patient satisfaction following both treatment modalities did not significantly differ at the 3-month follow up (P = 0.425).
CONCLUSIONS: VPL used for MAL-PDT is an efficient alternative for the treatment of AK that results in complete remission and cosmesis equivalent to LED irradiation but causes significantly less pain.