Search

ABSTRACT Background Aim Methods Results Conclusions Telangiectasia is a prominent feature of rosacea leading to a high demand for effective treatment. To ensure consistent clinical and scientific evaluations and assess treatment response accurately, standardized assessment tools are necessary for grading the severity of telangiectasia. However, no validated grading scales for this condition are currently available.To develop and validate a photonumeric scale for assessing the severity of telangiectasia in rosacea patients.The five‐point photonumeric Telangiectasia in Rosacea Severity Assessment (TRoSA) scale was developed for the severity of telangiectasia in rosacea. Sixteen experts participated in the validation process, evaluating 50 images of rosacea patients in two rounds. Interrater and intrarater reliability were analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa, respectively.Interrater reliability was found to be “almost perfect” in both validation rounds (Round 1: ICC 0.847; Round 2: ICC 0.828). The mean weighted kappa indicated “substantial” intrarater reliability between the two rounds with a weighted kappa of 0.719. A bubble plot of the two rounds illustrated a diagonal order, confirming the consistency of the intrarater agreement.The TRoSA scale demonstrated high interrater and intrarater reliability indicating that it is a consistent and reproducible tool for grading the severity of telangiectasia in rosacea. This scale can standardize clinical assessments, assisting in diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluation of therapeutic efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pulsed dye lasers (PDL) are currently the first‐line treatment of port‐wine birthmarks (PWB). Due to high maintenance costs and instable technology, alternative methods are needed. Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of a variable‐sequenced, long‐pulsed 532‐nm potassium titanyl‐phosphate (KTP) laser and PDL on treating PWB. Methods: A prospective, randomized, split‐side study. Patients were treated with a KTP laser and PDL with 1 to 5 sessions at intervals of 6–8 weeks. A follow‐up visit was scheduled 6 weeks post‐treatment. Efficacy was evaluated through colorimetric analysis, area reduction measurements and clinical evaluations by two blinded investigators based on photo documentation. Subjects provided rating of pain intensity during treatment, post‐treatment reactions and satisfaction. Safety was measured by adverse events. Maintenance issues of the laser systems were documented. Results: A total of 35 patients (mean age 42.1 years) were enrolled. 63% were female. Patients received 2.4 (SD 1.4; 1–5) treatment sessions. Colorimetric analysis indicated a comparable clearance effect in PWB of both KTP laser and PDL. Independent investigators rated clinical appearance to be significantly improved compared to baseline. No significant difference was observed between both laser systems. Regarding post‐treatment reactions, the KTP laser caused less swelling, purpura and crusts. 96% would recommend both treatment modalities. Patients were satisfied with both laser systems. During the study, PDL systems malfunctioned for 6.6 months in total. For the KTP laser, we did not observe any system failures. Conclusion: Our data indicate that the KTP laser of the latest generation with large‐spot sizes, subpulse technology and cryogen cooling has a comparable efficacy to the PDL in treating PWB. In addition, KTP laser is associated with greater tolerability, fewer technical failures and lower repair costs. Further prospective studies are required to determine the true effectiveness of the KTP laser in PWB treatment. This study was preregistered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05771298). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]