Search

Objective: The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize and compare the clinical efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) and pulsed-dye laser (PDL) therapies for the management of rosacea., Methods: The literatures were searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies investigating the use of IPL and PDL for the treatment of rosacea. Screening of the retrieved articles and data extraction were performed as per the pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome measures evaluated in this meta-analysis included clearance rates, erythema scores, and pain scores., Results: The meta-analysis incorporated data from four studies involving a total of 141 participants. The meta-analysis did not reveal a statistically significant difference between IPL and PDL in the rate of achieving greater than 50% clearance (RR = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.19, 0.05). However, the IPL group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of clearance exceeding 75% compared to the PDL group (RR = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.23, -0.04). The change in erythema index, a key measure of rosacea severity, was similar between the two treatment modalities (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.55, 0.26). Interestingly, the PDL group reported a notably lower VAS pain score than the IPL group (SMD = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.08, 3.00)., Conclusion: Either PDL or IPL appears to be effective modalities for the management of rosacea. IPL exhibits a slight advantage in achieving a higher rate of substantial (>75%) clearance, while PDL may be preferable for patients with lower tolerance for post-treatment discomfort. However, the existing literature directly comparing these two laser/light-based therapies is limited, warranting further well-designed, large-scale studies to establish the optimal treatment algorithm for this chronic inflammatory skin condition., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Previous clinical studies have shown that pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL) are effective for treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea(ETR). This article aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL and IPL at three different wavelength bands (broad-band, single-narrow-band, and dual-narrow-band) in treating ETR. Sixty subjects with ETR were randomly categorized into four groups and received one of the following laser treatments: PDL (595 nm), IPL with Delicate Pulse Light (DPL, 500-600 nm), IPL with M22 590 (590-1200 nm), or IPL with M22 vascular filter (530-650 nm and 900-1200 nm). Four treatment sessions were administered at 4-week intervals, with one follow-up session 4 weeks after the final treatment. The efficacy of the four lasers was evaluated by comparing the clinical symptom score, total effective rate, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score before and after treatment. The safety was evaluated by comparing adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, and blister. All 60 subjects completed the study. Within-group effects showed that the clinical symptom score, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score of all four groups were significantly reduced compared to before treatment (p < 0.001). Between-group effects showed no statistically significant difference among the four laser groups. Safety analysis showed that all four lasers were safe, but the incidence of blister was higher in the M22 vascular group. Nonpurpurogenic PDL, DPL, M22 590, and M22 vascular were equally effective in treating ETR and were well-tolerated. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360251., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Facial telangiectasia is one of the common skin vascular lesions characterized by dilated cutaneous vasculatures. The variety of diameters and difference in depths of lesional blood vessels are the major challenges for effective treatments for Facial telangiectasia., Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety profiles of pulsed dye laser (PDL, 595 nm) with intense pulsed light (IPL) configured by three different wavelength bands in the treatment for facial telangiectasia in Asian populations., Patients/methods: A retrospective analysis of hospital records and review on photographs were performed for those subjects with facial telangiectasia (n = 160) who were treated in our department from January 2017 to January 2019. Patients were received two sessions of one of the four following laser treatments: PDL (595 nm, n = 38), IPL with M22 vascular filter (530-650 nm and 900-1200 nm, n = 39), M22 560 (560-1200 nm, n = 42), and M22 590 (590-1200 nm, n = 41)., Results: The patients in all the four groups showed an overall and significant improvement of indexes of lesional severity and subjective discomfort as well as improvement score of facial telangiectasia after treatment as compared to baseline. In addition, PDL (595 nm) and IPL with vascular filter (530-650 nm and 900-1200 nm) treatments showed significantly better indexes of lesional severity, subjective discomfort, and improvement score of facial telangiectasia as compared with other two treatments., Conclusion: Light devices with various wavelength ranges showed different efficacies of treatment for facial telangiectasia, among which PDL (595 nm) and IPL with M22 vascular filter (530-650 nm and 900-1200 nm) had similar and the best clinical efficacy as compared to IPL with other wavelength bands., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)