{"title":"Prospective, Split-Face Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Non-ablative Fractional Laser for Periorbital Photoaging in Different Age Groups.","authors":"Ximeng Jia, Heng Zheng, Lvping Huang, Yongqiang Feng","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-04733-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional lasers (NAFL) have recently been introduced as treatments for periorbital photoaging. This prospective, randomized split-face trial aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of these NAFL treatments in addressing periorbital photoaging in Asian patients across various age groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighteen patients completed the study, with nine under 45 (Group A) and nine aged 45 or older (Group B). Each received three 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional laser treatments at 6-week intervals on the bilateral periorbital area. Comparative photographs were taken, and wrinkle depression scores and volumes were quantified. Patient satisfaction, adverse reactions, and pain scores were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant improvement in bilateral periorbital photodamage was observed in patients Group B compared to baseline, while no significant improvement was noted in Group A. Throughout the study, Group B showed a trend of better outcomes in periorbital measurements compared to Group A, with a significant difference in treatment improvement between the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the two laser treatments. Both laser treatments were well tolerated, with limited and transient complications and no long-term adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 1550 nm and 1565 nm NAFL treatments are advanced, effective, and safe methods for improving periorbital photoaging, showing superior and more consistent results in middle-aged and elderly patients. There were no significant differences between the two lasers. Patient age is a crucial factor influencing the effectiveness of these treatments, with middle-aged and elderly patients being the optimal candidates.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04733-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional lasers (NAFL) have recently been introduced as treatments for periorbital photoaging. This prospective, randomized split-face trial aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of these NAFL treatments in addressing periorbital photoaging in Asian patients across various age groups.
Methods: Eighteen patients completed the study, with nine under 45 (Group A) and nine aged 45 or older (Group B). Each received three 1550 nm and 1565 nm non-ablative fractional laser treatments at 6-week intervals on the bilateral periorbital area. Comparative photographs were taken, and wrinkle depression scores and volumes were quantified. Patient satisfaction, adverse reactions, and pain scores were also recorded.
Results: Significant improvement in bilateral periorbital photodamage was observed in patients Group B compared to baseline, while no significant improvement was noted in Group A. Throughout the study, Group B showed a trend of better outcomes in periorbital measurements compared to Group A, with a significant difference in treatment improvement between the two groups. No significant differences were observed between the two laser treatments. Both laser treatments were well tolerated, with limited and transient complications and no long-term adverse effects.
Conclusion: The 1550 nm and 1565 nm NAFL treatments are advanced, effective, and safe methods for improving periorbital photoaging, showing superior and more consistent results in middle-aged and elderly patients. There were no significant differences between the two lasers. Patient age is a crucial factor influencing the effectiveness of these treatments, with middle-aged and elderly patients being the optimal candidates.
Level of evidence i: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
期刊介绍:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP).
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.