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

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<or=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<or=0.031).

CONCLUSION

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.