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.

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.

Erratum to "Therapeutic Effectiveness and Safety of Mesotherapy in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2018/6513049.].

Therapeutic Effectiveness and Safety of Mesotherapy in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of mesotherapy by comparing it with the classic systematic therapy in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Sixty patients were included and classified into two groups based on the existence of contraindications for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These patients were treated with oral NSAIDs (Group A) or mesotherapy (Group B). After completing the treatment, the patients were followed up for 6 months. Their clinical features, laboratory results, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients completed treatment and follow-up. The patients in Group B had significantly fewer gastric acid-related complaints and requested less supplementary treatment for recurrent pain (p < 0.05). The patients in both groups exhibited decreased blood viscosity after treatment (p < 0.05). WOMAC scores, specifically those for pain and stiffness, were found to be significantly improved after either type of treatment (p < 0.05). Mesotherapy also ameliorated physical function (p < 0.05). Furthermore, Group B presented with better outcomes than Group A (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that mesotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for patients with OA. Clinicians should consider mesotherapy as an alternative therapy for patients with contraindications for NSAID use.