Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2008
Long-pulsed dye laser versus long-pulsed dye laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Haedersdal Merete, Togsverd-Bo Katrine, Wiegell Stine Regin, Wulf Hans Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL)-assisted photodynamic therapy has been suggested to be superior to laser alone for acne vulgaris but no evidence is available.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPDL alone versus LPDL in photodynamic therapy with methylaminolevulinic acid (MAL-LPDL) for acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Fifteen patients received a series of 3 full-face LPDL treatments and half-face prelaser MAL treatments; the latter being randomly assigned to the left or right side.
RESULTS: Inflammatory lesions were reduced more on MAL-LPDL-treated than on LPDL-treated sides (week 4: 70% vs 50%, P = .003; week 12: 80% vs 67%, P = .004). Noninflammatory lesions reduced similarly. Patient satisfaction was slightly greater with MAL-LPDL versus LPDL treatments (scale 0-10: week 4: 7 vs 6, P = .034; week 12: 8 vs 7.5, P = .034). Fluorescence measurements detected photobleaching with MAL-LPDL (35.3%) and LPDL (7.3%) treatments (P < .001). Erythema, edema, and pustular eruptions intensified from MAL incubation. No patients experienced pigment changes or scarring.
LIMITATIONS: The sample size was limited. The split-face design in this randomized controlled trial does not allow us to draw conclusions about the efficacy of the LPDL, only about the efficacy of MAL-LPDL compared with LPDL alone.
CONCLUSIONS: MAL-LPDL is slightly superior to LPDL for the treatment of inflammatory acne.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPDL alone versus LPDL in photodynamic therapy with methylaminolevulinic acid (MAL-LPDL) for acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Fifteen patients received a series of 3 full-face LPDL treatments and half-face prelaser MAL treatments; the latter being randomly assigned to the left or right side.
RESULTS: Inflammatory lesions were reduced more on MAL-LPDL-treated than on LPDL-treated sides (week 4: 70% vs 50%, P = .003; week 12: 80% vs 67%, P = .004). Noninflammatory lesions reduced similarly. Patient satisfaction was slightly greater with MAL-LPDL versus LPDL treatments (scale 0-10: week 4: 7 vs 6, P = .034; week 12: 8 vs 7.5, P = .034). Fluorescence measurements detected photobleaching with MAL-LPDL (35.3%) and LPDL (7.3%) treatments (P < .001). Erythema, edema, and pustular eruptions intensified from MAL incubation. No patients experienced pigment changes or scarring.
LIMITATIONS: The sample size was limited. The split-face design in this randomized controlled trial does not allow us to draw conclusions about the efficacy of the LPDL, only about the efficacy of MAL-LPDL compared with LPDL alone.
CONCLUSIONS: MAL-LPDL is slightly superior to LPDL for the treatment of inflammatory acne.