Comparative efficacy and safety of the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser and the traditional combined Q-switched and long-pulse Nd: YAG lasers in melasma treatment: a randomized evaluator-blinded trial.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Surong Liang, Shuai Shang, Ansheng Tan, Wensi Zhang, Boyang Zhou, Xueling Mei, Linfeng Li
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and safety of the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser and the traditional combined Q-switched and long-pulse Nd: YAG lasers in melasma treatment: a randomized evaluator-blinded trial.","authors":"Surong Liang, Shuai Shang, Ansheng Tan, Wensi Zhang, Boyang Zhou, Xueling Mei, Linfeng Li","doi":"10.1007/s10103-025-04286-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Melasma significantly impacts life quality, and while various laser therapies show promise, rigorous comparative studies, especially between the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser (PSAL) and the traditional combined modality of Q-switched and Long-pulse Nd: YAG Lasers (QLNYL), are notably lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the efficacy and safety of these modalities, providing insights into their comparative advantages for clinical practice. In a prospective, evaluator-blinded study, 40 participants with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) III and IV underwent three treatment sessions at four-week intervals with either PSAL or QLNYL. Efficacy was primarily assessed by changes in Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores at baseline, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks, along with patient satisfaction evaluations at the 12- and 24-week marks, and safety assessments conducted throughout the study. Both groups experienced significant reductions in MASI scores post-treatment. Overall, the improvement in MASI scores in the QLNYL group significantly surpassed that in the PSAL group (P = 0.010). Patient satisfaction was comparably high between groups, and no significant differences were noted in safety profiles. The PSAL group showed a slightly higher incidence of adverse reactions (not significant) and significantly higher pain scores (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates at the 24-week follow-up were 10.5% for PSAL and 0% for QLNYL, with no significant difference. Both PSAL and QLNYL proved effective in treating melasma, with the traditional combined modality of QLNYL demonstrating superior efficacy in FST III-IV. Safety profiles were similar comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11754324/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04286-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Melasma significantly impacts life quality, and while various laser therapies show promise, rigorous comparative studies, especially between the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser (PSAL) and the traditional combined modality of Q-switched and Long-pulse Nd: YAG Lasers (QLNYL), are notably lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the efficacy and safety of these modalities, providing insights into their comparative advantages for clinical practice. In a prospective, evaluator-blinded study, 40 participants with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) III and IV underwent three treatment sessions at four-week intervals with either PSAL or QLNYL. Efficacy was primarily assessed by changes in Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores at baseline, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks, along with patient satisfaction evaluations at the 12- and 24-week marks, and safety assessments conducted throughout the study. Both groups experienced significant reductions in MASI scores post-treatment. Overall, the improvement in MASI scores in the QLNYL group significantly surpassed that in the PSAL group (P = 0.010). Patient satisfaction was comparably high between groups, and no significant differences were noted in safety profiles. The PSAL group showed a slightly higher incidence of adverse reactions (not significant) and significantly higher pain scores (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates at the 24-week follow-up were 10.5% for PSAL and 0% for QLNYL, with no significant difference. Both PSAL and QLNYL proved effective in treating melasma, with the traditional combined modality of QLNYL demonstrating superior efficacy in FST III-IV. Safety profiles were similar comparable.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lasers in Medical Science
Lasers in Medical Science 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lasers in Medical Science (LIMS) has established itself as the leading international journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications of lasers and light. It provides a forum for the publication of papers on the technical, experimental, and clinical aspects of the use of medical lasers, including lasers in surgery, endoscopy, angioplasty, hyperthermia of tumors, and photodynamic therapy. In addition to medical laser applications, LIMS presents high-quality manuscripts on a wide range of dental topics, including aesthetic dentistry, endodontics, orthodontics, and prosthodontics. The journal publishes articles on the medical and dental applications of novel laser technologies, light delivery systems, sensors to monitor laser effects, basic laser-tissue interactions, and the modeling of laser-tissue interactions. Beyond laser applications, LIMS features articles relating to the use of non-laser light-tissue interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信