Premium
Long‐pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split‐face trial with blinded response evaluation
Author(s) -
Jørgensen Gitte F.,
Hedelund Lene,
Hædersdal Merete
Publication year - 2008
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.20634
Subject(s) - medicine , intense pulsed light , erythema , hyperpigmentation , forehead , dermatology , adverse effect , telangiectasia , randomized controlled trial , blinded study , surgery , dentistry
Objective In a randomized controlled split‐face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long‐pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). Materials and Methods Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I–III, classes I–II rhytids, and symmetrical split‐face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3‐week intervals with half‐face LPDL (V‐beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half‐face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end‐points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end‐points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self‐assessments and by blinded clinical on‐site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on‐site evaluations. Results Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side‐to‐side evaluations, patient self‐assessments, P ≤0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side‐to‐side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL‐ or IPL‐treated sides. Treatment‐related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7–8) than LPDL (4.75–5.5) treatments ( P <0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL‐ to IPL treatments ( P ≤0.031). Conclusion This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:293–299, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.