Efficacy and safety comparison between pulsed dye laser and intense pulsed light configured with different wavelength bands in treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea

• Published in: Lasers in medical science Vol. 39; no. 1; p. 146
• Main Authors: Ruan, Jiali, Zheng, Yuxin, Cai, Suiqing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Springer London 01.06.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Blistering; Dentistry; Dye lasers; Dyes; Edema; Effectiveness; Female; Group effects; Humans; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy - adverse effects; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy - instrumentation; Intense Pulsed Light Therapy - methods; Lasers; Lasers, Dye - adverse effects; Lasers, Dye - therapeutic use; Low-Level Light Therapy - adverse effects; Low-Level Light Therapy - instrumentation; Low-Level Light Therapy - methods; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Optical Devices; Optics; Original Article; Photonics; Purpura; Quantum Optics; Rosacea; Rosacea - radiotherapy; Rosacea - therapy; Safety; Skin diseases; Statistical analysis; Treatment Outcome; Wavelength; Intense pulsed light; Pulsed dye laser; Rosacea
• ISSN: 1435-604X; 0268-8921; 1435-604X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10103-024-04098-9

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.