一项比较分数调q红宝石激光和1064 nm调q YAG激光对中国女性黄褐斑的随机裂面试验,标题为:fQSRL vs. QSNY。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Yumei Gao, Yalan Bi, Eray Yihui Zhou, Zhenghui Li, Jie Ren, Yi Zhao
{"title":"一项比较分数调q红宝石激光和1064 nm调q YAG激光对中国女性黄褐斑的随机裂面试验,标题为:fQSRL vs. QSNY。","authors":"Yumei Gao, Yalan Bi, Eray Yihui Zhou, Zhenghui Li, Jie Ren, Yi Zhao","doi":"10.1007/s10103-025-04626-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laser therapy plays an essential role in the management of melasma. However, direct comparisons between the fractional Q-switched ruby laser (fQSRL) and the Q-switched 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser (QSNY) are limited, particularly in Asian populations. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of fQSRL versus QSNY in the treatment of melasma. In this randomized, assessor-blinded, split-face study, 21 Chinese women (Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV) with bilateral melasma received 3 to 6 treatment sessions with fQSRL and QSNY, administered at three-week intervals. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Both lasers achieved a 62.0% response rate, with no significant difference in hemi-mMASI score reduction (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were similar between treatments. However, pain scores were significantly higher with fQSRL than with QSNY (P < 0.0001). Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurred bilaterally in one patient (4.8%), with no serious adverse events reported. QSNY and fQSRL demonstrated comparable efficacy in treating melasma in Chinese women. However, the higher pain associated with fQSRL may limit its patient acceptability. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm long-term efficacy and safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":17978,"journal":{"name":"Lasers in Medical Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"405"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pilot randomized split-face trial comparing fractional Q-Switched ruby laser and 1064-nm Q-Switched nd: YAG laser in Chinese women with melasma running titile: fQSRL vs. QSNY in melasma.\",\"authors\":\"Yumei Gao, Yalan Bi, Eray Yihui Zhou, Zhenghui Li, Jie Ren, Yi Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10103-025-04626-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Laser therapy plays an essential role in the management of melasma. However, direct comparisons between the fractional Q-switched ruby laser (fQSRL) and the Q-switched 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser (QSNY) are limited, particularly in Asian populations. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of fQSRL versus QSNY in the treatment of melasma. In this randomized, assessor-blinded, split-face study, 21 Chinese women (Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV) with bilateral melasma received 3 to 6 treatment sessions with fQSRL and QSNY, administered at three-week intervals. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Both lasers achieved a 62.0% response rate, with no significant difference in hemi-mMASI score reduction (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were similar between treatments. However, pain scores were significantly higher with fQSRL than with QSNY (P < 0.0001). Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurred bilaterally in one patient (4.8%), with no serious adverse events reported. QSNY and fQSRL demonstrated comparable efficacy in treating melasma in Chinese women. However, the higher pain associated with fQSRL may limit its patient acceptability. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm long-term efficacy and safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lasers in Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04626-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lasers in Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-025-04626-1","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

摘要

激光治疗在黄褐斑的治疗中起着重要的作用。然而,分数调q红宝石激光器(fQSRL)和调q 1064 nm Nd: YAG激光器(QSNY)之间的直接比较有限,特别是在亚洲人群中。因此,我们进行了这项研究,比较fQSRL与QSNY治疗黄褐斑的临床疗效、安全性和患者报告的结果。在这项随机、评估盲、裂脸研究中,21名患有双侧黄褐斑的中国女性(Fitzpatrick皮肤类型III-IV)接受了3 - 6次fQSRL和QSNY治疗,每3周给药一次。评估了疗效、安全性和患者满意度。两种激光器的有效率均为62.0%,半mmasi评分降低无显著差异(P < 0.05)。两种治疗方法的患者满意度评分相似。然而,fQSRL组的疼痛评分明显高于QSNY组(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A pilot randomized split-face trial comparing fractional Q-Switched ruby laser and 1064-nm Q-Switched nd: YAG laser in Chinese women with melasma running titile: fQSRL vs. QSNY in melasma.

Laser therapy plays an essential role in the management of melasma. However, direct comparisons between the fractional Q-switched ruby laser (fQSRL) and the Q-switched 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser (QSNY) are limited, particularly in Asian populations. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of fQSRL versus QSNY in the treatment of melasma. In this randomized, assessor-blinded, split-face study, 21 Chinese women (Fitzpatrick skin types III-IV) with bilateral melasma received 3 to 6 treatment sessions with fQSRL and QSNY, administered at three-week intervals. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Both lasers achieved a 62.0% response rate, with no significant difference in hemi-mMASI score reduction (P > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were similar between treatments. However, pain scores were significantly higher with fQSRL than with QSNY (P < 0.0001). Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation occurred bilaterally in one patient (4.8%), with no serious adverse events reported. QSNY and fQSRL demonstrated comparable efficacy in treating melasma in Chinese women. However, the higher pain associated with fQSRL may limit its patient acceptability. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm long-term efficacy and safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信