Karsai Syrus, Raulin Christian
Laserklinik Karlsruhe, Kaiserstr. 104, D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Lasers Surg Med. 2010 Mar;42(3):215-23. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20904.
Laser treatment of facial rhytides has evolved as a major modality of aesthetic surgery. Published results, while generally encouraging, feature highly diverse evaluation methods, which makes an evidence-based assessment of treatment efficacy and safety all but impossible.
To compare the results of different instruments of measurement.
PATIENTS/METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and completed the entire study. They received a single ablative fractional treatment of the peri-orbital region. The evaluation included the Fitzpatrick wrinkle score, the profilometric measurement of wrinkle depth and the Patient Benefit Index (both before and 3 months after treatment) as well as the assessment of patient satisfaction (1, 3, 6 days and 3 months after treatment).
All assessment instruments showed a significant, albeit moderate, improvement. The agreement between assessment methods was poor. Despite claiming to assess basically the same parameter, the Fitzpatrick wrinkle score and profilometry differed significantly, and neither assessment instrument showed any appreciable correlation with any other.
The outcome assessment of rhytide therapy-regardless of the method used-shows substantial room for improvement. Strict methodological precautions ought to be applied for 'objective' evaluation methods like photographic scoring and profilometry. Subjective methods of assessment are essential and might serve as a main outcome parameter. Finally, critical reappraisal of published treatment results seems warranted to review the quality of their methodology.
激光治疗面部皱纹已发展成为美容手术的一种主要方式。已发表的结果虽然总体上令人鼓舞,但评估方法高度多样,这使得基于证据评估治疗效果和安全性几乎不可能。
比较不同测量工具的结果。
患者/方法:招募了28名患者并完成了整个研究。他们接受了单次眼眶周围区域的剥脱性分次治疗。评估包括菲茨帕特里克皱纹评分、皱纹深度的轮廓测量以及患者受益指数(治疗前和治疗后3个月),以及患者满意度评估(治疗后1天、3天、6天和3个月)。
所有评估工具均显示出显著改善,尽管改善程度一般。评估方法之间的一致性较差。尽管声称评估的基本是相同参数,但菲茨帕特里克皱纹评分和轮廓测量法差异显著,且两种评估工具与其他任何工具均未显示出明显相关性。
皱纹治疗的结果评估——无论使用何种方法——都有很大的改进空间。对于像摄影评分和轮廓测量法这样的“客观”评估方法,应采取严格的方法学预防措施。主观评估方法至关重要,可能作为主要结果参数。最后,对已发表的治疗结果进行批判性重新评估似乎有必要,以审查其方法学质量。