Thaysen-Petersen Daniel, Erlendsson Andres M, Nash J F, Beerwerth Frank, Philipsen Peter A, Wulf Hans C, Haedersdal Merete
Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, USA.
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Nov;30(8):2171-7. doi: 10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4. Epub 2015 Aug 22.
The prevailing advice is to avoid sun exposure after intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal. However, no systematic evaluation of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) after IPL hair removal exits. Therefore, we investigated the occurrence of side effects in subjects receiving solar-simulated UVR after a low-fluence IPL treatment with a home-use device. Sixteen subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) II-V were enrolled. Three constitutive buttock blocks (4.4 × 6.4 cm) were each subdivided into four sites, randomized to one IPL exposure of 0, 7, 8, or 10 J/cm2 (spectral output 530-1100 nm). Blocks were randomized to no UVR or three standard erythema doses (SEDs) UVR either 30 min or 24 h after IPL. Follow-up visits were 48 h, 1 week, and 4 weeks after IPL. Outcome measures were (i) clinical skin reactions, (ii) reflectance measurements of erythema and pigmentation, and (iii) pain. Subjects with FST II-IV experienced no skin reactions up to 4 weeks after IPL, neither erythema, edema, blisters, crusting, textual, nor pigment changes. Reflectance confirmed no change in erythema and pigmentation (p ≥ 0.090). UVR exposure induced erythema and increased pigmentation. The combination of IPL and UVR induced skin reactions not different to responses from UVR (IPL-UVR vs. UVR, p ≥ 0.164). Pain was generally low (median 1, range 0-4) and correlated positively with fluence and pigmentation (Spearman's rho ≥ 0.394, p < 0.001). One subject with FST V experienced perifollicular hyperpigmentation after IPL and slightly more intense when exposed to UVR. A single UVR exposure of three SEDs either shortly or 1 day after low-fluence IPL causes no amplification of skin responses in constitutive skin of individuals with FST II-IV.
目前的建议是,在强脉冲光(IPL)脱毛后要避免阳光照射。然而,目前尚无对IPL脱毛后紫外线辐射(UVR)的系统性评估。因此,我们调查了使用家用设备进行低能量密度IPL治疗后接受模拟阳光UVR照射的受试者的副作用发生情况。招募了16名皮肤 Fitzpatrick 分型(FST)为II - V型的受试者。将三个臀部皮肤区域(4.4×6.4厘米)各自再细分为四个部位,随机分配接受0、7、8或10 J/cm²的单次IPL照射(光谱输出530 - 1100纳米)。这些区域在IPL照射后30分钟或24小时,随机分配不接受UVR照射或接受三个标准红斑剂量(SED)的UVR照射。随访时间为IPL照射后的48小时、1周和4周。观察指标包括:(i)临床皮肤反应;(ii)红斑和色素沉着的反射率测量;(iii)疼痛。FST II - IV型的受试者在IPL照射后4周内未出现皮肤反应,既无红斑、水肿、水疱、结痂、纹理变化,也无色素改变。反射率测量证实红斑和色素沉着无变化(p≥0.090)。UVR照射会诱发红斑并增加色素沉着。IPL和UVR联合照射诱发的皮肤反应与UVR单独照射的反应无差异(IPL - UVR与UVR相比,p≥0.164)。疼痛一般较轻(中位数为1,范围0 - 4),且与能量密度和色素沉着呈正相关(Spearman秩相关系数≥0.394,p < 0.001)。一名FST V型受试者在IPL照射后出现毛囊周围色素沉着,在接受UVR照射时色素沉着略加重。低能量密度IPL照射后不久或1天后单次接受三个SED的UVR照射,不会使FST II - IV型个体的正常皮肤的皮肤反应增强。