{"title":"超脉冲动态二氧化碳激光和粉刺提取器对密集粉刺的治疗效果:一项前瞻性、随机、分面、评价者盲法对照临床试验。","authors":"Meng-Yao Yang, Si-Meng Qiao, Di-Chao Ning, Yi-Hao Ding, Wei-Hui Zeng, Zhao Wang","doi":"10.1007/s10103-024-04104-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clearance of comedone is challenging in the treatment of acne, as it is very likely to develop into inflammatory lesions. However, there is lack of effective treatments for dense comedones. Comedone extractor has been widely employed by dermatologists, but the effect is temporary and may cause irritation. CO<sub>2</sub> laser is a potential method for dense comedones, but the efficacy and safety need to be explored. In this single-center, randomized, single-blind, self-controlled study, the faces of patients with dense comedones were randomly assigned into two sides receiving either ultra-pulse dynamic CO<sub>2</sub> laser or comedone extraction at an interval of 2 weeks for 4 sessions. After 4 treatments, the average comedone reduction rate of the CO<sub>2</sub> laser was 64.49%, which was higher than that by the extractor (46.36%) (P < .001). 79.16% of the patients reached over 50% reduction by CO<sub>2</sub> laser, while only 37.5% on extractor treated side reached 50% clearance. Texture index, porphyrin index, red zone, erythema index, and transepidermal water loss decreased after both treatments, and CO<sub>2</sub> laser showed more improvement. There was no difference in hydration index and melanin index between the two treatments. No permanent or severe side effects were observed on both sides. The CO<sub>2</sub> laser showed higher comedone clearance with lower pain scores than the comedone extractor.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"39 1","pages":"233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment effect of ultra-pulse dynamic CO<sub>2</sub> laser and comedone extractor in dense comedones: a prospective, randomized, split-face, evaluator-blind, controlled clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Meng-Yao Yang, Si-Meng Qiao, Di-Chao Ning, Yi-Hao Ding, Wei-Hui Zeng, Zhao Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10103-024-04104-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clearance of comedone is challenging in the treatment of acne, as it is very likely to develop into inflammatory lesions. However, there is lack of effective treatments for dense comedones. Comedone extractor has been widely employed by dermatologists, but the effect is temporary and may cause irritation. CO<sub>2</sub> laser is a potential method for dense comedones, but the efficacy and safety need to be explored. In this single-center, randomized, single-blind, self-controlled study, the faces of patients with dense comedones were randomly assigned into two sides receiving either ultra-pulse dynamic CO<sub>2</sub> laser or comedone extraction at an interval of 2 weeks for 4 sessions. After 4 treatments, the average comedone reduction rate of the CO<sub>2</sub> laser was 64.49%, which was higher than that by the extractor (46.36%) (P < .001). 79.16% of the patients reached over 50% reduction by CO<sub>2</sub> laser, while only 37.5% on extractor treated side reached 50% clearance. Texture index, porphyrin index, red zone, erythema index, and transepidermal water loss decreased after both treatments, and CO<sub>2</sub> laser showed more improvement. There was no difference in hydration index and melanin index between the two treatments. No permanent or severe side effects were observed on both sides. The CO<sub>2</sub> laser showed higher comedone clearance with lower pain scores than the comedone extractor.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"233\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04104-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-024-04104-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在治疗痤疮的过程中,清除粉刺是一项挑战,因为粉刺极有可能发展成炎性皮损。然而,目前缺乏针对密集粉刺的有效治疗方法。皮肤科医生广泛使用粉刺提取器,但其效果是暂时的,而且可能会造成刺激。二氧化碳激光是一种治疗密集性粉刺的潜在方法,但其有效性和安全性仍有待探索。在这项单中心、随机、单盲、自控的研究中,密集性粉刺患者的面部被随机分配到两侧,接受超脉冲动态二氧化碳激光或粉刺去除术,每2周为一个疗程,共4个疗程。4次治疗后,二氧化碳激光的平均黑头减少率为64.49%,高于拔除器的46.36%(P < .001)。79.16%的患者通过 CO2 激光达到了 50%以上的消退率,而通过拔毛器治疗的一侧只有 37.5%的患者达到了 50%的清除率。两种治疗方法后,纹理指数、卟啉指数、红区、红斑指数和经表皮失水都有所下降,而二氧化碳激光的改善幅度更大。两种疗法的水合指数和黑色素指数没有差异。双方均未观察到永久性或严重的副作用。与粉刺提取器相比,二氧化碳激光的粉刺清除率更高,疼痛评分更低。
Treatment effect of ultra-pulse dynamic CO2 laser and comedone extractor in dense comedones: a prospective, randomized, split-face, evaluator-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Clearance of comedone is challenging in the treatment of acne, as it is very likely to develop into inflammatory lesions. However, there is lack of effective treatments for dense comedones. Comedone extractor has been widely employed by dermatologists, but the effect is temporary and may cause irritation. CO2 laser is a potential method for dense comedones, but the efficacy and safety need to be explored. In this single-center, randomized, single-blind, self-controlled study, the faces of patients with dense comedones were randomly assigned into two sides receiving either ultra-pulse dynamic CO2 laser or comedone extraction at an interval of 2 weeks for 4 sessions. After 4 treatments, the average comedone reduction rate of the CO2 laser was 64.49%, which was higher than that by the extractor (46.36%) (P < .001). 79.16% of the patients reached over 50% reduction by CO2 laser, while only 37.5% on extractor treated side reached 50% clearance. Texture index, porphyrin index, red zone, erythema index, and transepidermal water loss decreased after both treatments, and CO2 laser showed more improvement. There was no difference in hydration index and melanin index between the two treatments. No permanent or severe side effects were observed on both sides. The CO2 laser showed higher comedone clearance with lower pain scores than the comedone extractor.
期刊介绍:
Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics.
The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.