Suppr超能文献

分数激光辅助局部麻醉剂递送中的参数:激光类型和激光设置的作用。

Parameters in fractional laser assisted delivery of topical anesthetics: Role of laser type and laser settings.

作者信息

Meesters Arne A, Nieboer Marilin J, Kezic Sanja, de Rie Menno A, Wolkerstorfer Albert

机构信息

Department of Dermatology, Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, NL-1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, NL-1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Lasers Surg Med. 2018 Oct;50(8):813-818. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22936. Epub 2018 May 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Efficacy of topical anesthetics can be enhanced by pretreatment of the skin with ablative fractional lasers. However, little is known about the role of parameters such as laser modality and laser density settings in this technique. Aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of pretreatment with two different ablative fractional laser modalities, a CO laser and an Er:YAG laser, and to assess the role of laser density in ablative fractional laser assisted topical anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each of 15 healthy subjects, four 10 × 10 mm test regions on the back were randomized to pretreatment (70-75 μm ablation depth) with CO laser at 5% density, CO laser at 15% density, Er:YAG laser at 5% density or Er:YAG laser at 15% density. Articaine hydrochloride 40 mg/ml + epinephrine 10 μg/ml solution was applied under occlusion to all four test regions. After 15 minutes, a pass with the CO laser (1,500 μm ablation depth) was administered as pain stimulus to each test region. A reference pain stimulus was given on unanesthetized skin. The main outcome parameter, pain, was scored on a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) after each pain stimulus.

RESULTS

Median VAS scores were 1.50 [CO 5%], 0.50 [CO 15%], 1.50 [Er:YAG 5%], 0.43 [Er:YAG 15%], and 4.50 [unanesthetized reference]. VAS scores for all pretreated test regions were significantly lower compared to the untreated reference region (P < 0.01). We found no significant difference in VAS scores between the CO and the Er:YAG laser pretreated regions. However, VAS scores were significantly lower at 15% density compared to 5% density for both for the CO laser (P < 0.05) and the Er:YAG laser (P < 0.01). Pretreatment with the CO laser was considered slightly more painful than pretreatment with Er:YAG laser by the subjects.

CONCLUSION

Fractional laser assisted topical anesthesia is effective even with very low energy settings and an occlusion time of only 15 minutes. Both the CO laser and the Er:YAG laser can be used to assist topical anesthesia although the CO laser pretreatment is experienced as more painful. In our study settings, using articaine/epinephrine solution and an occlusion time of 15 minutes, a density of 15% was more effective than 5%. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:813-818, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

摘要

背景与目的

剥脱性分数激光预处理皮肤可增强局部麻醉药的疗效。然而,对于该技术中激光模式和激光密度设置等参数的作用知之甚少。本研究的目的是比较两种不同剥脱性分数激光模式(CO激光和铒钇铝石榴石激光)预处理的疗效,并评估激光密度在剥脱性分数激光辅助局部麻醉中的作用。

研究设计/材料与方法:在15名健康受试者的背部,将四个10×10mm的测试区域随机分为用5%密度的CO激光、15%密度的CO激光、5%密度的铒钇铝石榴石激光或15%密度的铒钇铝石榴石激光进行预处理(消融深度70 - 75μm)。将40mg/ml盐酸阿替卡因+10μg/ml肾上腺素溶液在封闭条件下应用于所有四个测试区域。15分钟后,对每个测试区域进行一次CO激光(消融深度1500μm)照射作为疼痛刺激。在未麻醉的皮肤上给予参考疼痛刺激。主要结局参数疼痛在每次疼痛刺激后用0 - 10视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。

结果

VAS中位数评分分别为1.50[CO 5%]、0.50[CO 15%]、1.50[铒钇铝石榴石5%]、0.43[铒钇铝石榴石15%]和4.50[未麻醉参考区域]。与未处理的参考区域相比,所有预处理测试区域的VAS评分均显著更低(P < 0.01)。我们发现CO激光和铒钇铝石榴石激光预处理区域的VAS评分无显著差异。然而,对于CO激光(P < 0.05)和铒钇铝石榴石激光(P < 0.01),15%密度时的VAS评分均显著低于5%密度时。受试者认为CO激光预处理比铒钇铝石榴石激光预处理稍痛。

结论

即使能量设置非常低且封闭时间仅15分钟,分数激光辅助局部麻醉也是有效的。CO激光和铒钇铝石榴石激光均可用于辅助局部麻醉,尽管CO激光预处理更痛。在我们的研究设置中,使用阿替卡因/肾上腺素溶液且封闭时间为15分钟时,15%的密度比5%更有效。《激光外科与医学》50:813 - 818,2018年。©2018威利期刊公司

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验