Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy : official publication of the European Society for Laser Dermatology · 2012
A split-face comparison of a fractional microneedle radiofrequency device and fractional carbon dioxide laser therapy in acne patients.
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.
Shin Jung U, Lee Soo Hyun, Jung Jin Young, Lee Ju Hee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A number of lasers and light-based devices have been reported as promising treatment options for acne vulgaris.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) device treatment compared to CO(2) fractional laser system (FS) for the treatment of acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects underwent full-face treatment for acne vulgaris with CO(2) FS and MRF device. For each subject, two passes of CO(2) FS with a pulse energy setting of 80 mJ and a density of 100 spots/cm(2) were used on one side, and two passes of MRF device with a intensity of 8, density of 25 MTZ/cm(2), and a depth of 1.5-2.5 mm were used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and were also photographed.
RESULTS: Most of the patients improved based on clinical and photographic assessments 3 months after the treatment. No significant differences in physician-measured parameters, patient ratings, or intraoperative pain ratings were found, although downtime was significantly longer for the CO(2) FS treated side.
CONCLUSIONS: MRF device and CO(2) FS can be used for acne vulgaris patients and MRF device is more convenient than CO(2) FS because of its short downtime.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) device treatment compared to CO(2) fractional laser system (FS) for the treatment of acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Twenty healthy subjects underwent full-face treatment for acne vulgaris with CO(2) FS and MRF device. For each subject, two passes of CO(2) FS with a pulse energy setting of 80 mJ and a density of 100 spots/cm(2) were used on one side, and two passes of MRF device with a intensity of 8, density of 25 MTZ/cm(2), and a depth of 1.5-2.5 mm were used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and were also photographed.
RESULTS: Most of the patients improved based on clinical and photographic assessments 3 months after the treatment. No significant differences in physician-measured parameters, patient ratings, or intraoperative pain ratings were found, although downtime was significantly longer for the CO(2) FS treated side.
CONCLUSIONS: MRF device and CO(2) FS can be used for acne vulgaris patients and MRF device is more convenient than CO(2) FS because of its short downtime.