We have located links that may give you full text access.
Case Reports
Randomized Controlled Trial
A Randomized, Split-Face, Double-Blind Comparison Trial Between Fractionated Frequency-Doubled 1064/532 nm Picosecond Nd:YAG Laser and Fractionated 1927 nm Thulium Fiber Laser for Facial Photorejuvenation.
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 2021 Februrary
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Fractionated lasers are a popular therapeutic option for facial photorejuvenation. In this study, we compare the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a fractionated frequency-doubled 1064/532 nm picosecond Nd:YAG fractionated picosecond laser (FPL) versus a fractionated 1927 nm thulium fiber laser (TFL) for facial rejuvenation.
STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, split-face comparison study involving 20 subjects. Facial halves were randomized to receive either FPL or TFL treatment. Three treatments were delivered at 1-month intervals. Subjects were followed up for 1, 3, and 6 months post-final treatment session and evaluated by blinded, non-treating investigators for dyspigmentation, erythema, keratosis, texture, and rhytids on a standardized scale. Subjects also recorded a quantitative daily diary rating healing progress for 14 days after every treatment session.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in elastosis, erythema, keratosis, dyschromia, and skin texture were noted in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences detected in clinical efficacy between the two groups. Subject daily dairies revealed statistically significant differences in tolerability during the immediate 14-day post-operative recovery period. The facial half treated with FPL displayed significantly less redness on days 3 and 4; significantly less swelling on day 5; significantly less crusting on days 1 through 9; significantly less peeling on days 3 through 9; and significantly less itch on days 4 and 7. There were no unexpected adverse effects observed.
CONCLUSION: Both FPL and TFL are safe and effective treatment options for facial rejuvenation. FPL may be associated with significantly less downtime. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, split-face comparison study involving 20 subjects. Facial halves were randomized to receive either FPL or TFL treatment. Three treatments were delivered at 1-month intervals. Subjects were followed up for 1, 3, and 6 months post-final treatment session and evaluated by blinded, non-treating investigators for dyspigmentation, erythema, keratosis, texture, and rhytids on a standardized scale. Subjects also recorded a quantitative daily diary rating healing progress for 14 days after every treatment session.
RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in elastosis, erythema, keratosis, dyschromia, and skin texture were noted in both treatment groups. There were no significant differences detected in clinical efficacy between the two groups. Subject daily dairies revealed statistically significant differences in tolerability during the immediate 14-day post-operative recovery period. The facial half treated with FPL displayed significantly less redness on days 3 and 4; significantly less swelling on day 5; significantly less crusting on days 1 through 9; significantly less peeling on days 3 through 9; and significantly less itch on days 4 and 7. There were no unexpected adverse effects observed.
CONCLUSION: Both FPL and TFL are safe and effective treatment options for facial rejuvenation. FPL may be associated with significantly less downtime. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app