Search

Background: Selective photothermolysis (SPT) using a 1726 nm laser has emerged as a safe and effective treatment option for acne vulgaris by targeting sebaceous glands (SG). Power output plays a crucial role in determining treatment selectivity and efficacy. Aims: This work highlights the advantages of a higher‐power laser source and outlines the limitations of lower‐power laser sources and the subsequent impact on treatment. Methods: Light transport and bioheat transfer simulations were performed to demonstrate photothermal impact on the SG and the surrounding dermis when irradiated by a high‐ or lower‐power laser source. Results: The simulations showed that a single higher‐power‐shorter‐pulse (HPSP) selectively increases SG temperature well beyond bulk temperatures, which is desirable for SPT. Selectivity decreases linearly with power for the single lower‐power‐longer‐pulses (LPLP) exposure. A multiple‐LPLP approach elevates bulk temperatures significantly more than a single‐pulse strategy, compromising selectivity. Conclusion: The goal of SPT is to damage SG safely and effectively by creating an intense temperature rise localized to the SG while moderately increasing the dermis temperature. This goal is mostly achieved with higher‐power lasers that deliver a single HPSP. Lower‐power lasers, longer pulse widths, and multi‐pulse strategies result in higher bulk temperatures and lower SG selectivity, making such treatment challenging to execute while adding a higher risk of discomfort and downtime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective photothermolysis on sebaceous glands is an effective method for treating acne vulgaris (AV); however, safety, efficacy, and discomfort hinder its utilization in clinical settings. Aims: The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel 1726 nm laser with contact cooling to treat AV. Methods: Seventeen patients aged 18 to 36 were enrolled and treated in this IRB‐approved, single‐center, open‐label study. Patients received up to three facial laser sessions up to seven weeks apart. Follow‐up visits happened ten days post‐session and at the 4 and 12 weeks following the final session. The investigator assessed the severity of device‐related adverse events (AEs). Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) and inflammatory lesion counts (ILC) were used as metrics to evaluate acne resolution and skin condition enhancement. Patients' perspectives on satisfaction and comfort using this technology were assessed using Subject Experience Questionnaires (SEQ). Results: Safety assessment showed mild and transient AEs. All subjects tolerated anesthetics‐free treatments well, with a mean treatment discomfort score of 4.9 ± 1.5. Compared to baseline, a statistically significant reduction in ILC (p = 0.003) of 52% to 56% is achieved four to twelve weeks following treatment. Long‐term follow‐ups showed progressive improvement 24 months post‐treatment with a 97% reduction in ILC. SEQs revealed high subject satisfaction (71%) with psychosocial improvement three months post‐treatment. Conclusion: The novel 1726 nm laser appears safe and effective for treating mild‐to‐severe acne. Acne resolution is apparent within the first month and progresses beyond the study duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]