Pour Mohammad Arash, Gholizadeh Mesgarha Milad, Seirafianpour Farnoosh, Karimi Yeganeh, Sodagar Sogand, Afraie Maryam, Goodarzi Azadeh
Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Lasers Med Sci. 2023 Sep 30;38(1):228. doi: 10.1007/s10103-023-03856-5.
Laser therapies have been well-established in ameliorating skin-aging consequences. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy, safety profile, and satisfaction rates of laser combination therapies on skin rejuvenation resurfacing. A systematic search was performed in four major databases up to September 2022. Skin rejuvenation studies were eligible comprising at least one laser combination arm, inclusive of all laser types (ablative or non-ablatives), and one monotherapy arm selected from one of the combined modalities. Studies combining one laser modality with radiofrequency (RF) or intense pulse light (IPL) were also assessed. Trials that did not encompass a monotherapy control arm were evaluated independently as single-arm studies. Eighteen clinical trials recruiting 448 cases were included after screening. A total of 532 nm KTP + 1064 nm Nd:YAG and 2940 nm Er:YAG + Nd:YAG were the two most utilized laser combinations and exerted higher improvements and milder adverse events, compared to their monotherapy in most studies. Combining CO with rhodamine-IPL or gallium arsenide laser increased efficacy and satisfaction and brings about faster skin recovery time. Augmenting CO + RF did not increase improvement vs CO laser alone but prolonged skin erythema. Our meta-analysis revealed the pooled prevalence of quartile improvement rates as 0%, 28%, 40%, 27% in laser combination group, and 0%, 9%, 31%, 17% in laser monotherapy group, respectively. The satisfaction within each quartile category was 39%, 25%, 15%, 7% in laser combination and 20%, 25%, 16%, 17% in laser monotherapy, respectively, suggestive of the higher efficacy and satisfaction of laser combination group. The pain scores were lower in laser combination group than monotherapy (4.8 ± 1.18 vs 7.18 ± 0.7, converted on a scale of 0 to 10). Post-laser skin erythema lasted less longer in the combination group (12.8 vs 15.24 days). Laser combination therapies were discovered to be superior to their monotherapies in terms of clinical improvement rates, diminished adverse events such as pain and erythema and patients satisfaction rates. Due to paucity of high-quality reportings, additional trials are warranted to corroborate these results.
激光疗法在改善皮肤老化后果方面已得到充分确立。本系统评价旨在确定激光联合疗法在皮肤年轻化换肤方面的疗效、安全性和满意率。截至2022年9月,在四个主要数据库中进行了系统检索。符合条件的皮肤年轻化研究包括至少一个激光联合治疗组,涵盖所有激光类型(剥脱性或非剥脱性),以及从联合治疗方式之一中选择的一个单一疗法组。还评估了将一种激光疗法与射频(RF)或强脉冲光(IPL)相结合的研究。未包含单一疗法对照组的试验作为单臂研究独立评估。经过筛选,纳入了18项招募448例患者的临床试验。在大多数研究中,532nm KTP + 1064nm Nd:YAG和2940nm Er:YAG + Nd:YAG是最常用的两种激光联合疗法,与单一疗法相比,改善效果更好,不良事件更轻。将CO与罗丹明-IPL或砷化镓激光联合使用可提高疗效和满意度,并缩短皮肤恢复时间。与单独使用CO激光相比,增加CO + RF并没有提高改善效果,但延长了皮肤红斑的持续时间。我们的荟萃分析显示,激光联合治疗组四分位数改善率的汇总患病率分别为0%、28%、40%、27%,激光单一疗法组分别为0%、9%、31% 、17%。在每个四分位数类别中,激光联合治疗组的满意率分别为39%、25%、15%、7%,激光单一疗法组分别为20%、25%、16%、17%,这表明激光联合治疗组的疗效和满意率更高。激光联合治疗组的疼痛评分低于单一疗法组(4.8±1.18 vs 7.18±0.7,换算为0至10分制)。联合治疗组激光后皮肤红斑持续时间较短(12.8天 vs 15.24天)。发现激光联合疗法在临床改善率、减少疼痛和红斑等不良事件以及患者满意率方面优于单一疗法。由于高质量报告较少,需要更多试验来证实这些结果。