Comparison of the safety and efficacy of low fluence Q-switched 1064-nm and conventional Q-Switched 755-nm lasers in the treatment of café-au-lait macules: A prospective self-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional high fluence Q-switched (HFQS) Alexandrite 755-nm are widely used in clinical café-au-lait macules (CALMs) treatment. There have been recent concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of low fluence Q-switched (LFQS) Nd: YAG 1064-nm lasers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the conventional HFQS and LFQS laser in the treatment of CALMs. METHODS: Within 3 months, 20 patients underwent prospective self-controlled split-lesion treatments with HFQS once or twice depending on the recovery rate, and with LFQS six times biweekly. Then the more effective laser was selected for continued treatments. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated by a visual analog scale (VAS) biweekly during the comparative trail. Recovery process, side effects and recurrence were recorded during the trial and follow-up visit. Patient and physician preferences for laser selection were also recorded. RESULTS: The average VAS scores of areas treated with HFQS and LFQS were 2.92 ± 0.86 and 2.93 ± 1.13, respectively (p > 0.05). The most significant efficacy change of LFQS was after the fourth laser treatment (VAS score: 1.82-2.37, p < 0.001). 11 lesions treated with LFQS and 7 with HFQS achieved an optimal treatment response (3.67 ≤ VAS ≤ 4). Three patients relapsed on one side (one on LFQS, two on HFQS) and five on both sides. Adverse effects included temporary hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, uneven pigmentation, and mottled hypopigmentation. Doctors thought 80% of patients were suitable for LFQS. 70% of patients preferred LFQS posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy difference between the LFQS 1064-nm laser and HFQS 755-nm laser in treating CALMs in a 3-month comparative trial was statistically insignificant. LFQS is preferred by doctors and patients and is likely to help more patients achieve treatment efficacy than the HFQS within a short time, with fewer temporary adverse reactions, and a more even pigmentation. But it can cause mottled hypopigmentation. The LFQS had obvious lesion clearance after the fourth treatment.

Intense Pulsed Light Therapy Improves Acne-Induced Post-inflammatory Erythema and Hyperpigmentation: A Retrospective Study in Chinese Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Post-inflammatory erythema (PIE) and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) are the most common acne-related sequelae with no effective treatments. By combining different cut-off filters, intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy can effectively treat these conditions with few side effects. While the safety and effectiveness of IPL for treating post-burn hyperpigmentation is well known, there is little evidence for its benefits for acne-related PIH. In this article, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of IPL for the treatment of acne-related PIE and PIH. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 60 patients with more than 6 months of PIE and PIH treated by the same IPL device and similar protocols. The treatment included three to seven sessions at 4-6-week intervals, and three cut-off filters (640 nm, 590 nm and 560 nm) were used sequentially in each session. Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI), and Erythema Assessment Scale (EAS), patients were evaluated on the basis of their facial photographs. The facial brown spots and red areas were visualised and analysed using the VISIA-CR system. Six months after the last treatment, the patients were assessed for acne relapse or any side effects.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly processed and amend if necessary.Checked and confirmed. No further corrections. RESULTS: On the basis of the GAIS, 49 of 60 patients (81.7%) showed complete or partial clearance of erythema and hyperpigmentation. The CADI and EAS scores showed significant improvement (p < 0.01) after IPL treatment compared with pre-treatment. A significant reduction (p < 0.01) in the facial brown spots and red areas was seen after IPL treatment. While no long-term side effects were reported, seven patients (11.7%) experienced acne relapse at follow-up. CONCLUSION: IPL is an effective and safe treatment for acne-related PIE and PIH.

Combination Therapy of Pulsed Dye Laser With Intense Pulsed Light in Port-Wine Stain Treatment: A Prospective Side-by-Side Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed dye laser (PDL) treatment currently represents the mainstream choice for port-wine stain (PWS) treatment in accordance with selective photothermolysis. However, most PWS lesions cannot be removed despite several treatments. Intense pulsed light (IPL) is reportedly an effective alternative to PDL for PWS treatment. No studies have thus far been reported on the combination therapy of PDL with IPL in PWS treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of PDL with IPL for PWS treatment. METHODS: A total of 33 PWS lesions underwent 3 treatment sessions. Each PWS was divided into IPL + PDL, PDL, and untreated sites. Therapeutic outcomes were evaluated by visual assessment and chromametric assessment 3 months after the final treatment. RESULTS: The overall average blanching rates were 36.2% and 32.6% at the sites treated with IPL + PDL and PDL, respectively (p > .05). No permanent side effects were reported. CONCLUSION: In this laser setting, although IPL + PDL is a safe and effective PWS treatment, no significant improvement in the efficacy was observed using IPL + PDL in contrast to PDL alone.

Comparative Effectiveness of 755-nm Picosecond Laser, 755- and 532-nm Nanosecond Lasers for Treatment of Café-au-Lait Macules (CALMs): A Randomized, Split-Lesion Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many types of lasers have been used to treat café-au-lait macules (CALMs) since the introduction of the selective photothermolysis theory. However, the efficacy and safety of picosecond lasers, compared with those of nanosecond lasers, have not been researched. To compare the efficacy and safety of 755 nm picosecond laser (PS-755 nm), Q-switched (QS) Alexandrite 755 nm nanosecond laser (QS-755 nm), and QS Nd:YAG 532 nm nanosecond laser (QS-532 nm) for treating CALMs. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients received several treatments at 3-month intervals. Lesions were divided into two or three approximately equal parts, which were randomly treated with PS-755 nm, QS-755 nm, and QS-532 nm. The safety and efficacy of three lasers were determined based on blinded visual assessments and self-reports of patients three months after the comparative trial. RESULTS: Visual assessment 3 months after the comparative trial revealed that there was no statistically significant difference among the sites treated by QS-755 nm (2.84 ± 1.11), QS-532 nm (2.63 ± 1.06), and PS-755 nm (2.74 ± 1.05) lasers. Five (26.32%) of 19 patients showed lesion recurrence. Adverse effects included acneiform miliaris, hypopigmentation, and hyperpigmentation, which were resolved within 12 months. Five (26.32%) of 19 patients who showed lesion recurrence 1-5 months after laser treatment had lightened or cleared at least 50% of the lesion. 46.67% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the outcome of the overall treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PS-755 nm, QS-755 nm, and QS-532 nm laser treatments were equally effective in treating and improving CALMs. PS-755 nm caused fewer adverse effects. Individuals can react differently to different types of lasers. Patch tests should be conducted before the treatment. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Retrospective study of photodynamic therapy for pulsed dye laser-resistant port-wine stains.

Pulsed dye laser-resistant port-wine stains present a therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy for treating these lesions. A total of 67 patients with pulsed dye laser-resistant cervicofacial port-wine stains were retrospectively assessed after undergoing photodynamic therapy mediated with a combination of hemoporfin and 532-nm light. For objective evaluation of photodynamic therapy efficacy, first, the colorimetric changes in the port-wine stain lesions were evaluated according to the L*a*b* color coordinate system, then the values of color changes (ΔE) and blanching rate were calculated. For subjective evaluation of improvement, photographs taken before and after photodynamic therapy were evaluated by three independent assessors blindly. Patient satisfaction was also used as a factor in the subjective evaluation. Adverse events were recorded after treatment. The median ΔE decreased significantly from the pretreatment value of 13.42 to 9.90 at the 2-month follow up (P < 0.001). The median blanching rate of port-wine stains was 28.04% after an average of 1.21 sessions of photodynamic therapy. Based on the overall visual assessment, 46.2% patients showed excellent or good levels of improvement (>50% color blanching). Adverse events were minimal, transient and self-limiting. In conclusion, photodynamic therapy serves as an alternative means to treat pulsed dye laser-resistant port-wine stains.