Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy : official publication of the European Society for Laser Dermatology · 2014
Comparison of fractional, nonablative, 1550-nm laser and 595-nm pulsed dye laser for the treatment of facial erythema resulting from acne: a split-face, evaluator-blinded, randomized pilot study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Park Kui Young, Ko Eun Jung, Seo Seong Jun, Hong Chang Kwun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Postinflammatory erythema is commonly seen in patients with inflammatory acne. There are no reliable treatment guidelines for acne erythema.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect and safety of a nonablative, 1550-nm fractional laser and a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) for the treatment of acne erythema.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve Korean patients with acne erythema were enrolled. Sides of the face were randomized to receive treatment with a fractional laser or a PDL for a total of three treatments at 4-week intervals. The assessment of effectiveness was mean change in mexameter scores, investigator's and patients' clinical assessments.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in baseline acne erythema were observed through an improved erythema index on both treated sides. But, the improvements from each laser treatment were not significantly different. Mean scores of investigator assessments were 3.42 ± 0.67 in fractional laser-treated sites and 3.33 ± 0.65 in PDL-treated sites. Patients assessed their improvement as good or excellent in 91.7% of fractional laser-treated sites and 75% of PDL-treated sites.
CONCLUSION: Both lasers are effective and safe modalities for the treatment of acne erythema; however, these data suggest better clinical efficacy with the use of a 1550-nm, erbium-glass fractional laser.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect and safety of a nonablative, 1550-nm fractional laser and a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) for the treatment of acne erythema.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve Korean patients with acne erythema were enrolled. Sides of the face were randomized to receive treatment with a fractional laser or a PDL for a total of three treatments at 4-week intervals. The assessment of effectiveness was mean change in mexameter scores, investigator's and patients' clinical assessments.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in baseline acne erythema were observed through an improved erythema index on both treated sides. But, the improvements from each laser treatment were not significantly different. Mean scores of investigator assessments were 3.42 ± 0.67 in fractional laser-treated sites and 3.33 ± 0.65 in PDL-treated sites. Patients assessed their improvement as good or excellent in 91.7% of fractional laser-treated sites and 75% of PDL-treated sites.
CONCLUSION: Both lasers are effective and safe modalities for the treatment of acne erythema; however, these data suggest better clinical efficacy with the use of a 1550-nm, erbium-glass fractional laser.