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 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Jung Yup, Yang, Junghwa, Huh, Gyoo, Choi, Young-Jun, Kim, Won-Serk
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