Karppinen Toni, Kantola Emmi, Karppinen Ari, Rantamäki Antti, Kautiainen Hannu, Mordon Serge, Guina Mircea
Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Department of Dermatology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Lasers Surg Med. 2019 Mar;51(3):223-229. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23051. Epub 2019 Jan 6.
The primary objective of this study was to compare a traditional green KTP laser to a new investigational yellow laser (PhotoLase) in the treatment of facial telangiectasia in terms of the treatment outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess the functionality and reliability of the PhotoLase system from the perspective of the user.
STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: The study was a randomized split-face double-blinded study that compared the treatment efficacy of the 532-nm KTP laser and the investigational 585-nm PhotoLase laser. One or two treatments were given based on the response of the first treatment. The improvement of telangiectasia was graded according to a 7-point Telangiectasia Grading Scale (TGS) by the subjects and blinded physicians. The subjects assessed the amount of pain during the treatments using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and evaluated adverse effects 2-3 days after the treatment(s) using a self-assessment form.
At least 50% improvement was seen in 15/18 subjects after the first PhotoLase treatment, and a similar result was observed for KTP, as assessed by the blinded physicians (P = 0.29). In the subjects' assessment, 7/18 subjects had at least 50% improvement after the first PhotoLase treatment, whereas at least 50% improvement was observed for 10/18 subjects in the KTP side, the difference being significant (P = 0.008). The amount of pain was higher with PhotoLase compared to KTP (67.7 vs. 34.6, P < 0.001). There was no difference in the frequency of erythema, crusting or purpura between the devices, but more blistering and less edema were seen after PhotoLase treatment (P < 0.05). Treatment with PhotoLase was evaluated to be 4.7-fold faster than with KTP and the PhotoLase system was more compact, narrower, lighter, and easier to carry than KTP.
The investigational PhotoLase laser enables significantly faster treatments, but the process is somewhat more painful than with KTP, otherwise providing a similar clinical outcome in the treatment of facial telangiectasia. Treatment Protocol Lasers Surg. Med. 51:223-229, 2019. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
本研究的主要目的是比较传统的绿色KTP激光与新型研究用黄色激光（PhotoLase）在治疗面部毛细血管扩张症方面的治疗效果。次要目的是从用户角度评估PhotoLase系统的功能和可靠性。
研究设计/方法：本研究为随机半脸双盲研究，比较了532纳米KTP激光和研究用585纳米PhotoLase激光的治疗效果。根据首次治疗的反应给予一次或两次治疗。受试者和盲法医生根据7分制的毛细血管扩张分级量表（TGS）对毛细血管扩张的改善情况进行分级。受试者使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估治疗期间的疼痛程度，并在治疗后2至3天使用自我评估表评估不良反应。
首次使用PhotoLase治疗后，18名受试者中有15名至少改善了50%，盲法医生评估KTP的结果相似（P = 0.29）。在受试者的评估中，首次使用PhotoLase治疗后，18名受试者中有7名至少改善了50%，而KTP侧有10名受试者至少改善了50%，差异有统计学意义（P = 0.008）。与KTP相比，PhotoLase的疼痛程度更高（67.7对34.6，P < 0.001）。两种设备在红斑、结痂或紫癜的发生率上没有差异，但PhotoLase治疗后水泡更多，水肿更少（P < 0.05）。评估显示，使用PhotoLase治疗的速度比KTP快4.7倍，并且PhotoLase系统比KTP更紧凑、更窄、更轻且更易于携带。
研究用PhotoLase激光能显著加快治疗速度，但过程比KTP稍痛，不过在治疗面部毛细血管扩张症方面提供了相似的临床结果。治疗方案 激光外科与医学。51:223 - 229, 2019。©威利期刊公司。
