首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology: JEADV >Novel device‐based acne treatments: comparison of a 1450‐nm diode laser and microneedling radiofrequency on mild‐to‐moderate acne vulgaris and seborrhoea in Korean patients through a 20‐week prospective, randomized, split‐face study
【24h】

Novel device‐based acne treatments: comparison of a 1450‐nm diode laser and microneedling radiofrequency on mild‐to‐moderate acne vulgaris and seborrhoea in Korean patients through a 20‐week prospective, randomized, split‐face study

机译:基于新型的痤疮治疗方法:通过20周的前瞻性,随机的分裂面研究比较1450-NM二极管激光和微针激光和微针射频和桃红色痤疮和Seborrhoea的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background While device‐based acne treatments are widely applied for patients not tolerating conventional medications, related controlled studies have been still limited. Recently, non‐ablative 1450‐nm diode laser ( DL ) and fractional microneedling radiofrequency ( FMR ) have been effectively used for acne, in addition to well‐recognized dermal remodelling effects. Objective To compare the clinical course of acne treatment between DL and FMR . Methods Twenty‐five Korean patients with mild‐to‐moderate facial acne completed treatments with DL and FMR through a 20‐week, randomized split‐face study. One randomly assigned half side of each patient's face received DL and the other side by FMR . Treatments were scheduled to receive three consecutive sessions at 4‐week intervals. Objective assessments including revised Leeds grades, lesion counts, sebum output measurements, and patients’ subjective satisfaction were investigated. Results Both DL and FMR demonstrated steady improvement of acne and seborrhoea during treatment sessions. While results between two devices were similar during treatment sessions, FMR was superior to DL in the 12‐week follow‐up. Patients’ subjective assessments for seborrhoea improvement were similar between two devices, while those for acne, skin texture, and acne scars were more satisfactory for FMR . For safety profile, no significant difference was observed between two regimens, while mild postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was observed only in DL side. Conclusion Both DL and FMR demonstrated efficacies for acne and seborrhoea, with reasonable safety profile. FMR was more effective than DL for the long‐term maintenance, and subjective assessments for texture and scar improvements. Therefore, a few sessions of these devices would be a viable option for acne treatments.
机译:摘要背景,而基于装置的痤疮治疗广泛应用于不耐受常规药物的患者,相关的受控研究仍然有限。最近,除了公认的真皮重塑效果之外,痤疮还有效地使用非烧蚀1450nm二极管激光(D1)和分数微针射频(FMR)。目的比较DL和FMR痤疮治疗的临床进程。方法采用25例韩国患者轻度至中度面部痤疮完成了DL和FMR的治疗,通过了20周,随机分裂面研究。一个随机分配了每个患者面部的半侧接收DL和另一侧的FMR。预定治疗时间以4周的间隔接待三个连续课程。目的评估包括修订的LEEDS等级,病变计数,皮脂产量测量和患者主观满意度。结果DL和FMR均在治疗会话期间展示了痤疮和皮脂症的稳步改善。虽然在治疗会话期间,两个设备之间的结果相似,但在12周的随访中,FMR优于DL。患者对SEBORHOEA改善的主观评估在两种器件之间相似,而痤疮,皮肤纹理和痤疮疤痕的患者对FMR更令人满意。对于安全性曲线,在两个方案之间没有观察到显着差异,而仅在D1侧观察到轻度发芽的高度沉降。结论DL和FMR均表现出对痤疮和脂溢性的疗效,具有合理的安全性。 FMR比DL更有效,对于长期维护,以及质地和瘢痕改进的主观评估。因此,这些设备的几次会话将是痤疮治疗的可行选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号