Comparison of the efficacy and safety between a low-fluence 1064-nm Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser and a conventional Q-switched 532-nm laser for the treatment of cafe-au-lait macules in 40 Chinese children: a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, evaluator-blinded trial.

Cafe-au-lait macules (CALMs) affect the appearance of patients and can result in serious psychological problems. Successful treatments without adverse effects remain challenging. We designed a prospective, randomized, controlled, evaluator-blinded trial on 40 pediatric patients to compare the efficacy between a low-fluence 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser and a Q-switched Nd:YAG 532-nm laser for the treatment of solitary CALMs in children. We randomly assigned participants into 2 groups. We treated those in the first group with 3 sessions of 532-nm QS laser at 1-month intervals, and those in the second group with 6 sessions of 1064-nm LFQS laser at 2-week intervals. We found no significant differences in treatment efficacy (p = 0.14). The 1064-nm laser group referred significantly less pain than the 532-nm laser group (p = 0.0001). Side effects were detected in 5 patients in the 532-nm laser group. The difference of the side effects was statistically significant (p = 0.04). Two patients in 532-nm laser group were recurred and none in 1064-nm laser group. On a univariate logistic regression analysis, lesions with brown color, small size, and irregular edges were significantly associated with better outcomes (> 50% clearance). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that brown lesions and lesions with irregular edges had higher odds of getting > 50% clearance (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the 1064-nm LFQS laser produced fewer side effects, less pain, and shorter recovery time than the 532-nm laser. Irregular-bordered, smaller, brown lesions improved better than smooth-bordered, larger, light brown lesions. Moreover, the 1064-nm laser may be a better choice for treating large size CALMs. However, no significant differences were found in terms of the treatment efficacy and recurrence.