Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy : official publication of the European Society for Laser Dermatology · 2014
Comparative efficacy of intense pulsed light for different erythema associated with rosacea.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Liu Jianjun, Liu Junlian, Ren Yingyun, Li Bin, Lu Shichao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) (540-950 nm) in treating different erythema associated with rosacea.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR) (n = 16) and papulopustular rosacea (PPR, n = 16) were recruited. Three treatments of IPL (540-950 nm) were administered on the face at 3-week intervals. Clinical improvement in erythema was independently assessed by two dermatologists using a quartile grading scale [0, ≤ 25% improvement (poor); 1, 26-50% improvement (fair); 2, 51-75% improvement (good); and 3, 76-100% improvement (excellent)]. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS: 0, lowest; and 10, highest).
RESULTS: Thirty patients were involved in this study. All patients showed improvement in erythema after three sessions of IPL (540-950 nm) treatment. Based on physician's assessment, the overall clinical improvement in PPR group was significantly higher (mean ± SD of PPR group, 2.167 ± 0.748 vs. ETR group, 1.400 ± 0.541; P = 0.003) and patient satisfaction was also higher in PPR group (mean ± SD of PPR group, 6.867 ± 1.457 vs. ETR group, 5.600 ± 1.502; P = 0.026). The proportion of patients showing > 75% clinical improvement among PPR group was also higher than that among ETR group (5/15 and 0/15, respectively; P = 0.021). Side effects were minimal and transient (erythema and/or edema) for patients.
CONCLUSIONS: IPL (540-950 nm) is a safe and effective treatment for rosacea-associated erythema, especially for perilesional erythema.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR) (n = 16) and papulopustular rosacea (PPR, n = 16) were recruited. Three treatments of IPL (540-950 nm) were administered on the face at 3-week intervals. Clinical improvement in erythema was independently assessed by two dermatologists using a quartile grading scale [0, ≤ 25% improvement (poor); 1, 26-50% improvement (fair); 2, 51-75% improvement (good); and 3, 76-100% improvement (excellent)]. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS: 0, lowest; and 10, highest).
RESULTS: Thirty patients were involved in this study. All patients showed improvement in erythema after three sessions of IPL (540-950 nm) treatment. Based on physician's assessment, the overall clinical improvement in PPR group was significantly higher (mean ± SD of PPR group, 2.167 ± 0.748 vs. ETR group, 1.400 ± 0.541; P = 0.003) and patient satisfaction was also higher in PPR group (mean ± SD of PPR group, 6.867 ± 1.457 vs. ETR group, 5.600 ± 1.502; P = 0.026). The proportion of patients showing > 75% clinical improvement among PPR group was also higher than that among ETR group (5/15 and 0/15, respectively; P = 0.021). Side effects were minimal and transient (erythema and/or edema) for patients.
CONCLUSIONS: IPL (540-950 nm) is a safe and effective treatment for rosacea-associated erythema, especially for perilesional erythema.