Premium
Nevus of Ota: A new classification based on the response to laser treatment
Author(s) -
Chan Henry H.,
Lam Laikun,
Wong David S.Y.,
Leung Ronald S.C.,
Ying Shunyuen,
Lai Chamfai,
Ho Waisun,
Chua John K.H.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
lasers in surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1096-9101
pISSN - 0196-8092
DOI - 10.1002/lsm.1049
Subject(s) - nevus of ota , birthmark , medicine , dermatology , nevus , dermabrasion , laser treatment , surgery , laser , melanoma , cancer research , physics , optics
Background and Objective For 60 years, Tanino's classification has been used to classify the extent of nevus of Ota. However, such classification not only fails to address variants such as phacomatosis pigmentovascularis but also cannot be used to predict the therapeutic outcome. Our objective is to retrospectively study our series of laser‐treated patients with the aim of re‐classifying nevus of Ota, so that such important issues can be taken into account. Study Design/Materials and Methods One hundred nineteen patients that had received Q‐switched laser treatment were recruited into the study. They were recalled for interview and examination for evidence of coexisting birthmarks and extracutaneous involvement. Two observers assessed the pre‐ and posttreatment clinical photographs for evidence of periorbital under‐response (panda's sign), defined as the degree of periorbital laser clearing significantly less than clearing in the other area. Results A total of 47.8% of the patients with periorbital pigmentation were considered by the observers to have significant periorbital under‐response (panda's sign). Additionally, 10.1% had other birthmarks, and extracutaneous involvement was seen in 31.4% of the patients. Conclusion Periorbital under‐response is commonly seen in patients with periorbital pigmentation. Taking this and other factors into consideration, we have proposed a new classification for nevus of Ota that allows for the prediction of the clinical outcome of laser treatment. Lasers Surg. Med. 28:267–272, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.