Department of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Shanghai Institute of Dermatology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Lasers Surg Med. 2023 Feb;55(2):169-177. doi: 10.1002/lsm.23635. Epub 2023 Jan 30.
To compare the efficacy and safety of fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser and nonablative fractional 1565 nm laser in the treatment of enlarged pores.
STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients received five monthly treatments at months 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 and were followed up at months 5, 6, and 7. All patients were treated by fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser (FxPico) on the left face, and nonablative fractional 1565 nm laser (ResurFx) on the right face as a control.
For the 19 patients who completed the study, both sides demonstrated significant improvement on pore counts (p < 0.01), while there was no significant difference between the two sides 3 months after the final treatment (p = 0.092). Excellence rate on the FxPico side (57.9%) was significantly better than the ResurFx side (36.8%) (p < 0.05). Sebum secretion and porphyrin value significantly decreased on both sides after five treatments and there was a higher reduction of sebum level on the ResurFx side. There was no difference between the two therapies in terms of overall satisfaction. Pain of treatment for the ResurFx side (average VAS 4.45 ± 1.60) is significantly higher than that for the FxPico side (average visual analog scale [VAS] 1.48 ± 1.36) (p < 0.001). Erythema, edema, and petechiae were common adverse effects and were mild to moderate. There was significantly higher incidence of hyperpigmentation for the ResurFx side (52.6%) compared with that for the FxPico side (5.3%) (p < 0.001).
Fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser and nonablative fractional 1565 nm laser both are effective, efficient, and safe treatment regimens for enlarged pores, while fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser has better clinical response with less treatment pain, shorter recovery period and much lower induction of hyperpigmentation.
比较 1064nm 飞秒 Nd:YAG 皮秒激光和非剥脱性 1565nm 激光治疗毛孔粗大的疗效和安全性。
研究设计/材料和方法：20 例患者在 0、1、2、3、4 个月时接受 5 次每月治疗，并在 5、6、7 个月时进行随访。所有患者均在左侧面部接受 1064nm 飞秒 Nd:YAG 皮秒激光（FxPico）治疗，右侧面部作为对照接受非剥脱性 1565nm 激光（ResurFx）治疗。
19 例完成研究的患者，双侧毛孔计数均显著改善（p<0.01），但末次治疗后 3 个月双侧差异无统计学意义（p=0.092）。FxPico 侧的优良率（57.9%）明显优于 ResurFx 侧（36.8%）（p<0.05）。5 次治疗后，双侧皮脂分泌和卟啉值均显著降低，ResurFx 侧皮脂水平降低更明显。两种治疗方法在总体满意度方面无差异。ResurFx 侧治疗疼痛（平均视觉模拟评分 [VAS] 4.45±1.60）明显高于 FxPico 侧（平均 VAS 1.48±1.36）（p<0.001）。红斑、水肿和瘀斑是常见的不良反应，均为轻至中度。ResurFx 侧色素沉着发生率（52.6%）明显高于 FxPico 侧（5.3%）（p<0.001）。
1064nm 飞秒 Nd:YAG 皮秒激光和非剥脱性 1565nm 激光均为治疗毛孔粗大的有效、高效、安全的治疗方案，而 1064nm 飞秒 Nd:YAG 皮秒激光具有更好的临床疗效，治疗疼痛较轻，恢复期较短，色素沉着发生率较低。
