Cargando…
A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines
BACKGROUND: Solar lentigines are the most common form of benign epidermal pigmentation and one of the major cosmetic concerns in Korea. A 532 nm Q-switched neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (QSND) laser is typically used for the treatment, but the occurrence of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Dermatological Association; The Korean Society for Investigative Dermatology
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33911703 http://dx.doi.org/10.5021/ad.2020.32.1.8 |
_version_ | 1783669418194108416 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Jung Yup Yang, Junghwa Huh, Gyoo Choi, Young-Jun Kim, Won-Serk |
author_facet | Kim, Jung Yup Yang, Junghwa Huh, Gyoo Choi, Young-Jun Kim, Won-Serk |
author_sort | Kim, Jung Yup |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Solar lentigines are the most common form of benign epidermal pigmentation and one of the major cosmetic concerns in Korea. A 532 nm Q-switched neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (QSND) laser is typically used for the treatment, but the occurrence of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is not rare. Recently, the use of picosecond (PS) lasers has emerged in pursuit of better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To objectively compare the efficacy and safety of 532 nm PS and QSND lasers for the treatment of solar lentigines. METHODS: Twenty patients with solar lentigines were enrolled in a prospective, randomized split-face, single-blind study. One side of each face was treated using a 532 nm PS laser, and the other side using a 532 nm QSND laser. After one treatment, all patients were followed up for evaluation after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The clinical clearance was assessed by three blinded dermatologists using a 5-point quartile improvement scale (QIS). Subjective satisfaction, development of PIH, pain scale during treatment, and adverse problems were also recorded. RESULTS: Clinical clearance measured by QIS showed that the PS laser was more effective than the QSND laser. Subjective satisfaction and pain scale did not significantly differ between the two groups. The incidence of PIH was 5% in sides treated with the PS laser, and 30% with the QSND laser. CONCLUSION: Both 532 nm PS laser and QSND laser were effective for the treatment of solar lentigines, but the PS laser was more effective with less PIH development. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7992642 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Korean Dermatological Association; The Korean Society for Investigative Dermatology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79926422021-04-27 A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines Kim, Jung Yup Yang, Junghwa Huh, Gyoo Choi, Young-Jun Kim, Won-Serk Ann Dermatol Original Article BACKGROUND: Solar lentigines are the most common form of benign epidermal pigmentation and one of the major cosmetic concerns in Korea. A 532 nm Q-switched neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (QSND) laser is typically used for the treatment, but the occurrence of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is not rare. Recently, the use of picosecond (PS) lasers has emerged in pursuit of better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To objectively compare the efficacy and safety of 532 nm PS and QSND lasers for the treatment of solar lentigines. METHODS: Twenty patients with solar lentigines were enrolled in a prospective, randomized split-face, single-blind study. One side of each face was treated using a 532 nm PS laser, and the other side using a 532 nm QSND laser. After one treatment, all patients were followed up for evaluation after 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The clinical clearance was assessed by three blinded dermatologists using a 5-point quartile improvement scale (QIS). Subjective satisfaction, development of PIH, pain scale during treatment, and adverse problems were also recorded. RESULTS: Clinical clearance measured by QIS showed that the PS laser was more effective than the QSND laser. Subjective satisfaction and pain scale did not significantly differ between the two groups. The incidence of PIH was 5% in sides treated with the PS laser, and 30% with the QSND laser. CONCLUSION: Both 532 nm PS laser and QSND laser were effective for the treatment of solar lentigines, but the PS laser was more effective with less PIH development. The Korean Dermatological Association; The Korean Society for Investigative Dermatology 2020-02 2019-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7992642/ /pubmed/33911703 http://dx.doi.org/10.5021/ad.2020.32.1.8 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Korean Dermatological Association and The Korean Society for Investigative Dermatology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kim, Jung Yup Yang, Junghwa Huh, Gyoo Choi, Young-Jun Kim, Won-Serk A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title | A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title_full | A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title_fullStr | A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title_full_unstemmed | A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title_short | A Split-Face, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Comparison of 532 nm Picosecond Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser versus 532 nm Q-Switched Neodymium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Solar Lentigines |
title_sort | split-face, single-blinded, randomized controlled comparison of 532 nm picosecond neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser versus 532 nm q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser in the treatment of solar lentigines |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33911703 http://dx.doi.org/10.5021/ad.2020.32.1.8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimjungyup asplitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT yangjunghwa asplitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT huhgyoo asplitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT choiyoungjun asplitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT kimwonserk asplitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT kimjungyup splitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT yangjunghwa splitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT huhgyoo splitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT choiyoungjun splitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines AT kimwonserk splitfacesingleblindedrandomizedcontrolledcomparisonof532nmpicosecondneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserversus532nmqswitchedneodymiumdopedyttriumaluminumgarnetlaserinthetreatmentofsolarlentigines |