Long-pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split-face trial with blinded response evaluation

G.F. Jorgensen; L. Hedelund; M. Haedersdal

Long-pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split-face trial with blinded response evaluation

G.F. Jorgensen, L. Hedelund, M. Haedersdal

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: In a randomized controlled split-face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). Materials and Methods: Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, classes I-II rhytids, and symmetrical split-face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3-week intervals with half-face LPDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half-face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end-points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end-points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and by blinded clinical on-site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on-site evaluations. Results: Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side-to-side evaluations, patient self-assessments, P <= 0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side-to-side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL- or IPL-treated sides. Treatment-related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7-8) than LPDL (4.75-5.5) treatments (P<0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL- to IPL treatments (P<0.031). This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain
Udgivelsesdato: 2008/7

Original language	English
Journal	Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
Volume	40
Issue number	5
Pages (from-to)	293-299
Number of pages	6
ISSN	0196-8092
Publication status	Published - 2008

Cite this

@article{f9f6b4408be511de8bc9000ea68e967b,

title = "Long-pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split-face trial with blinded response evaluation",

abstract = "Objective: In a randomized controlled split-face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). Materials and Methods: Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, classes I-II rhytids, and symmetrical split-face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3-week intervals with half-face LPDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half-face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end-points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end-points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and by blinded clinical on-site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on-site evaluations. Results: Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side-to-side evaluations, patient self-assessments, P <= 0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side-to-side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL- or IPL-treated sides. Treatment-related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7-8) than LPDL (4.75-5.5) treatments (P<0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL- to IPL treatments (P<0.031). This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain Udgivelsesdato: 2008/7",

author = "G.F. Jorgensen and L. Hedelund and M. Haedersdal",

note = "Times Cited: 0ArticleEnglishHaedersdal, MBispebjerg Hosp, Dept Dermatol D 42, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, DenmarkCited References Count: 25321AHWILEY-LISSDIV JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN, NJ 07030 USAHOBOKEN",

year = "2008",

language = "English",

volume = "40",

pages = "293--299",

journal = "Lasers in Surgery and Medicine",

issn = "0196-8092",

publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Long-pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split-face trial with blinded response evaluation

AU - Jorgensen, G.F.

AU - Hedelund, L.

AU - Haedersdal, M.

N1 - Times Cited: 0ArticleEnglishHaedersdal, MBispebjerg Hosp, Dept Dermatol D 42, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, DenmarkCited References Count: 25321AHWILEY-LISSDIV JOHN WILEY & SONS INC, 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN, NJ 07030 USAHOBOKEN

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Objective: In a randomized controlled split-face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). Materials and Methods: Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, classes I-II rhytids, and symmetrical split-face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3-week intervals with half-face LPDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half-face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end-points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end-points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and by blinded clinical on-site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on-site evaluations. Results: Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side-to-side evaluations, patient self-assessments, P <= 0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side-to-side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL- or IPL-treated sides. Treatment-related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7-8) than LPDL (4.75-5.5) treatments (P<0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL- to IPL treatments (P<0.031). This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain Udgivelsesdato: 2008/7

AB - Objective: In a randomized controlled split-face trial to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects from rejuvenation with long-pulsed dye laser (LPDL) versus intense pulsed light (IPL). Materials and Methods: Twenty female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, classes I-II rhytids, and symmetrical split-face photodamage were included in the study. Subjects received a series of three treatments at 3-week intervals with half-face LPDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, Candela Laser Corporation) and half-face IPL (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development); the interventions being randomly assigned to left and right sides. Primary end-points were telangiectasias, irregular pigmentation and preferred treatment. Secondary end-points were skin texture, rhytids, pain, and adverse effects. Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and by blinded clinical on-site and photographic evaluations at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Adverse effects were evaluated by blinded clinical on-site evaluations. Results: Telangiectasia improved from LPDL and IPL treatments with superior vessel clearance from LPDL treatments (postoperative side-to-side evaluations, patient self-assessments, P <= 0.031, 3, 6 months). Irregular pigmentation and skin texture improved from both treatments with no significant side-to-side differences. No reduction was seen of rhytides on LPDL- or IPL-treated sides. Treatment-related pain scores were significantly higher after IPL (medians 7-8) than LPDL (4.75-5.5) treatments (P<0.001). Adverse effects included erythema, oedema, and transient hyperpigmentation. Patients preferred LPDL- to IPL treatments (P<0.031). This study was based on two specific laser and IPL equipments, which found LPDL rejuvenation advantageous to IPL rejuvenation due to superior vessel clearance and less pain Udgivelsesdato: 2008/7

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0196-8092

VL - 40

SP - 293

EP - 299

JO - Lasers in Surgery and Medicine

JF - Lasers in Surgery and Medicine

IS - 5

ER -