Comparison of the 1064-nm picosecond laser with fractionated microlens array and 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser for the treatment of enlarged pores: a randomized, split-face, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This split-face randomized study compared the efficacy and safety between 1064-nm picosecond laser with fractionated microlens array (MLA) and 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser to treat enlarged pores. METHODS: Participants with enlarged facial pores were enrolled and underwent three consecutive sessions at 2-week intervals with either a 1064-nm picosecond laser with MLA or a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser. Images were captured at each visit. Objective (pore number) and subjective assessments, including patient self-evaluations and quartile improvement scales, were used to evaluate the treatment efficacy. The pain levels and adverse effects were recorded at each subsequent visit. RESULTS: The participants were 3 men and 22 women with enlarged facial pores. At the initial and 2-month checkups after the last treatment, the pore numbers were significantly decreased bilaterally for both lasers. The respective quartile improvement scale scores for the 1064-nm picosecond and 1565-nm fractional lasers were 2.22 ± 1.06 and 2.14 ± 1.11, while those for patient self-assessment were 3.72 ± 0.74 and 3.68 ± 0.75. The pore number, quartile improvement scale score, and patients' self-assessments did not differ significantly between the two lasers. Treatment with the 1064-nm picosecond laser better reduced pain compared with the 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (4.11 ± 1.33 vs. 4.83 ± 1.17). The occurrence of pigmentation did not differ significantly between the lasers. CONCLUSION: Both the 1064-nm picosecond laser with MLA and the 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser are viable options for treating enlarged pores, and showed comparable respective efficacies; however, the former was less likely to cause hyperpigmentation and was better tolerated.