Kono Taro, Groff William Frederick, Sakurai Hiroyuki, Takeuchi Masaki, Yamaki Takashi, Soejima Kazutaka, Nozaki Motohiro
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ann Plast Surg. 2007 Nov;59(5):479-83. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3180327943.
Currently, various nonablative skin resurfacing techniques are being used to rejuvenate facial skin, including lasers and intense pulsed light (IPL). There are few direct comparison studies between IPLs and lasers. The objective of our study is to compare the effectiveness of intense pulsed light versus a long-pulse pulsed dye laser (LPDL) in the treatment of facial skin rejuvenation. Ten Asian patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV were enrolled in this study. One half of the face was treated with IPL (6 treatment sessions) and the other side was treated by LPDL (3 treatment sessions). An LPDL with a wavelength of 595 nm and spot size of 7 mm was used. Utilizing the compression method, lentigines were treated using a PDL with a fluence between 9-12 J/cm and a pulse duration of 1.5 ms. Wrinkles were treated with fluences between 10 to 12 J/cm and a pulse duration of 20 ms, using a pulse-stacking technique. An IPL with a type B handpiece was used. Lentigines and wrinkles were treated with fluences between 27 to 40 J/cm and a pulse duration of 20 ms. The improvement of lentigines was 62.3% and 81.1% for IPL and LPDL respectively. There was no significant difference between IPL and LPDL in wrinkle reduction. There was no scarring or pigmentary change seen with either device. Both IPL and LPDL are effective for facial skin rejuvenation in Asians, but LPDL treatment is significantly better than IPL treatment in the treatment of lentigines. The use of the compression technique may allow this LPDL to be used effectively for facial rejuvenation and with fewer treatment sessions, when compared with the IPL.
目前，各种非剥脱性皮肤表面重建技术正被用于面部皮肤年轻化，包括激光和强脉冲光（IPL）。IPL与激光之间的直接对比研究较少。我们研究的目的是比较强脉冲光与长脉冲染料激光（LPDL）在面部皮肤年轻化治疗中的效果。10名Fitzpatrick皮肤类型为III-IV型的亚洲患者参与了本研究。面部的一半用IPL治疗（6次治疗疗程），另一侧用LPDL治疗（3次治疗疗程）。使用波长为595nm、光斑大小为7mm的LPDL。采用压迫法，使用能量密度在9-12J/cm²、脉冲持续时间为1.5ms的PDL治疗雀斑。使用脉冲叠加技术，以能量密度在10至12J/cm²、脉冲持续时间为20ms治疗皱纹。使用B型手持件的IPL。以能量密度在27至40J/cm²、脉冲持续时间为20ms治疗雀斑和皱纹。IPL和LPDL治疗雀斑的改善率分别为62.3%和81.1%。IPL和LPDL在减少皱纹方面无显著差异。两种设备均未出现瘢痕形成或色素改变。IPL和LPDL对亚洲人的面部皮肤年轻化均有效，但在治疗雀斑方面，LPDL治疗明显优于IPL治疗。与IPL相比，使用压迫技术可能使这种LPDL能有效地用于面部年轻化且治疗疗程更少。
