Department of laser surgery, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for Skin Diseases and STIs, Institute of Dermatology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Jiangwangmiao Street 12, Xuanwu District, Nanjing, 210042, China.
Department of Dermatology, Yunnan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 650021, No. 120 Guanghua Rd, Kunming, 650021, China.
Lasers Med Sci. 2024 Feb 24;39(1):80. doi: 10.1007/s10103-024-04028-9.
This split-face randomized study compared the efficacy and safety between 1064-nm picosecond laser with fractionated microlens array (MLA) and 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser to treat enlarged pores.
Participants with enlarged facial pores were enrolled and underwent three consecutive sessions at 2-week intervals with either a 1064-nm picosecond laser with MLA or a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser. Images were captured at each visit. Objective (pore number) and subjective assessments, including patient self-evaluations and quartile improvement scales, were used to evaluate the treatment efficacy. The pain levels and adverse effects were recorded at each subsequent visit.
The participants were 3 men and 22 women with enlarged facial pores. At the initial and 2-month checkups after the last treatment, the pore numbers were significantly decreased bilaterally for both lasers. The respective quartile improvement scale scores for the 1064-nm picosecond and 1565-nm fractional lasers were 2.22 ± 1.06 and 2.14 ± 1.11, while those for patient self-assessment were 3.72 ± 0.74 and 3.68 ± 0.75. The pore number, quartile improvement scale score, and patients' self-assessments did not differ significantly between the two lasers. Treatment with the 1064-nm picosecond laser better reduced pain compared with the 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (4.11 ± 1.33 vs. 4.83 ± 1.17). The occurrence of pigmentation did not differ significantly between the lasers.
Both the 1064-nm picosecond laser with MLA and the 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser are viable options for treating enlarged pores, and showed comparable respective efficacies; however, the former was less likely to cause hyperpigmentation and was better tolerated.
本研究采用随机分组的自身对照研究比较了 1064nm 皮秒激光联合微透镜阵列与 1565nm 非剥脱性点阵激光治疗面部毛孔粗大的疗效和安全性。
纳入面部毛孔粗大的患者，间隔 2 周进行 3 次连续治疗，分别接受 1064nm 皮秒激光联合微透镜阵列或 1565nm 非剥脱性点阵激光治疗。每次就诊时拍摄照片。采用客观（毛孔数量）和主观评估（包括患者自评和四分位改善评分）来评估治疗效果。记录每次治疗后的疼痛程度和不良反应。
共纳入 3 名男性和 22 名女性患者，均存在面部毛孔粗大。初次就诊和末次治疗后 2 个月时，双侧治疗区的毛孔数量均显著减少。1064nm 皮秒和 1565nm 非剥脱性点阵激光的四分位改善评分分别为 2.22±1.06 和 2.14±1.11，患者自评分别为 3.72±0.74 和 3.68±0.75。两种激光之间的毛孔数量、四分位改善评分和患者自评无显著差异。与 1565nm 非剥脱性点阵激光相比，1064nm 皮秒激光治疗后的疼痛程度更轻（4.11±1.33 比 4.83±1.17）。两种激光的色素沉着发生率无显著差异。
1064nm 皮秒激光联合微透镜阵列和 1565nm 非剥脱性点阵激光均是治疗毛孔粗大的有效方法，疗效相当，但前者发生色素沉着的风险较低，患者耐受性更好。
