Holmkvist K A, Rogers G S
Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts, USA.
Arch Dermatol. 2000 Jun;136(6):725-31. doi: 10.1001/archderm.136.6.725.
To directly compare the cosmetic outcome and adverse effects of dermabrasion and superpulsed carbon dioxide laser for the treatment of perioral rhytides.
Subjects were randomly assigned to receive treatment with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing to one side of the perioral area and dermabrasion to the other side in a prospective, comparative clinical study. The duration of follow-up by blinded observers was 4 months.
University hospital-based dermatologic surgery clinic.
Fifteen healthy fair-skinned volunteers with moderate to severe perioral rhytides and no history of prior cosmetic surgical procedures to the same anatomic area.
One half of the perioral area was treated with the LX-20SP Novapulse carbon dioxide laser (Luxar Corp, Bothell, Wash), and the other half was treated with dermabrasion using either a hand engine-driven diamond fraise or a medium-grade drywall sanding screen (3M Corp, St Paul, Minn).
Improvement in rhytides, patients' subjective reports of postoperative pain, time to reepithelialization, degree of postoperative crusting, and duration of postoperative erythema were observed for both methods. Standardized scoring systems were used to quantify outcome measures. Paired t tests were used for statistical comparisons of the 2 resurfacing methods.
The difference in rhytide scores for the 2 methods was not statistically significant (P= .35) at 4 months. Less postoperative crusting and more rapid reepithelialization were noted with the dermabrasion-treated skin. Postoperative erythema was of longer duration on laser-treated skin. Patients reported less pain with dermabrasion treatment. Subtle differences that were difficult to quantify were also noted between the methods.
Both dermabrasion and carbon dioxide laser resurfacing are effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides. Both methods have unique advantages and disadvantages.
直接比较磨皮术与超脉冲二氧化碳激光治疗口周皱纹的美容效果及不良反应。
在一项前瞻性对比临床研究中，受试者被随机分配接受二氧化碳激光换肤术治疗口周区域的一侧，另一侧接受磨皮术。由不知情的观察者进行4个月的随访。
大学附属医院的皮肤科手术诊所。
15名健康的白皮肤志愿者，有中度至重度口周皱纹，且同一解剖区域既往无美容手术史。
口周区域的一半用LX - 20SP Novapulse二氧化碳激光（Luxar公司，华盛顿州博塞尔）治疗，另一半用手动发动机驱动的金刚石磨头或中等级别的干墙砂纸（3M公司，明尼苏达州圣保罗）进行磨皮术治疗。
观察两种方法对口周皱纹的改善情况、患者术后疼痛的主观报告、上皮再形成时间、术后结痂程度及术后红斑持续时间。使用标准化评分系统对观察指标进行量化。采用配对t检验对两种换肤方法进行统计学比较。
4个月时，两种方法的皱纹评分差异无统计学意义（P = 0.35）。磨皮术治疗的皮肤术后结痂较少，上皮再形成更快。激光治疗的皮肤术后红斑持续时间更长。患者报告磨皮术治疗时疼痛较轻。两种方法之间还存在难以量化的细微差异。
磨皮术和二氧化碳激光换肤术在治疗口周皱纹方面均有效。两种方法都有独特的优缺点。
