Treatment of acne vulgaris using 1,565 nm non-ablative fractional laser in combination with isotretinoin and pricking blood therapy

Treatment of erythematous acne scars using 595-nm pulsed dye laser combined with 1565-nm ResurFX nonablative fractional laser

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a common inflammatory disease associated with various sequelae after skin lesion remission. Acne erythema has been considered simple erythema or a vascular lesion; however, because the understanding of this disease has improved, acne erythema is currently considered an early scar with erythematous components.

AIMS

This study evaluated the efficacy of using both a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) and 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) for the treatment of erythematous scars caused by acne.

METHODS

Ninety patients with acne scars were equally randomized to two groups. Group A (n = 45) received treatment with the NAFL. Group B (n = 45) received treatment with the PDL and NAFL. Each patient underwent one treatment session and 4 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Qualitative (χ2 = 12.415; p < 0.05) and quantitative (t = 2.675; p < 0.05) scores of Groups A and B were determined using a global scarring grading system and exhibited statistically significant differences. The quantitative score of Group A was higher than that of Group B (6.67 ± 3.46 vs. 4.98 ± 2.44). The erythema areas of the groups differed significantly after treatment, with Group B exhibiting more notable score improvements (5.00 [3.10, 7.10] vs. 2.80 [1.65, 4.60]; Z = 3.072; p < 0.05). The erythema regression rate of Group B (88.9%) was significantly higher than that of Group A (66.7%) (χ2 = 20.295; p < 0.001). Adverse events, including redness and swelling (86.6%), scabbing (78.8%), and purpura (36.6%), occurred within 7 days for 86.6% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of the PDL and NAFL is safe and effective for erythematous acne scars.

Review of Fractional Nonablative Lasers for the Treatment of Dermatologic Conditions in Darker Skin Phototypes

BACKGROUND

Fractional nonablative lasers (NAFLs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety for treating dermatologic conditions in patients with darker skin phototypes. Nonablative lasers are preferred in darker skin tones due to lower risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify the ideal laser options and parameters for treating common dermatologic conditions in patients with skin types IV-VI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed in May 2023. Of 1,065 articles were identified, and 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies were classified based on design, dermatologic condition, and skin phototype of patients, and assigned levels of evidence according to the Modified Criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine.

RESULTS

Strong level 1 evidence supports the treatment of melasma and atrophic scars using NAFL. Moderate level 2 evidence was found for using NAFL in acne vulgaris, striae, and skin rejuvenation; 45% of the studies examined skin types III-IV, 20% III-V, 7.5% II-IV, 5% II-V, 5% IV alone, and 2.5% I-IV.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to determine the optimal treatment modalities and parameters for skin types V and VI. Appropriate device selection and conservative treatment settings are crucial for optimizing outcomes and minimizing adverse events.

1927nm fractional thulium fiber laser combined with 30% salicylic acid for the treatment of acne and acne scars: A prospective, randomized, and split-face study

OBJECTIVES

Patients with acne usually develops acne scars subsequently, early intervention of scars is crucial in acne management. 1927nm fractional thulium fiber laser (TFL) is effective in scars improvement and chemical peels with 30% supramolecular salicylic acid (SSA) can be applied for the treatment of acne. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of TFL monotherapy versus the concomitant application of TFL and 30% SSA on acne and acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-three patients with acne and acne scars were enrolled, and two sides of the face were randomly divided to receive either TFL and SSA chemical peeling or TFL. Four sessions of TFL treatments were applied with 4-week intervals for both sides, SSA combined treatment side received eight SSA chemical peels with 2-week intervals additionally. GAGS, ECCA score, the number of acne lesions, melanin index (MI) and erythema index (EI), transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and side effects were recorded at Weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 18. Satisfaction of patients was recorded on both sides at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Thirty patients completed the study. Both control group (TFL monotherapy) and SSA group (TFL combined with SSA chemical peeling) significantly improved GAGS and ECCA score. SSA group showed higher efficacy in terms of GAGS and ECCA score, acne lesion count, TEWL, MI, EI, and satisfaction than control group. All the side effects were temporary and tolerable, no adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TFL and the TFL combined with 30% SSA chemical peeling are safe and effective for the treatment and prevention of acne and acne scars, though the combined group has higher efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser combined with mucopolysaccharide polysulfate cream for erythematous acne scars

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) combined with mucopolysaccharide polysulfate (MPS) cream in the treatment of erythematous acne scars.

METHODS

A total of 28 subjects with erythematous acne scars from June 2021 to April 2022 were enrolled. One side of each subject's face was randomly assigned to be treated with 1565-nm NAFL (at 2 sessions with four-week intervals) combined with MPS cream (twice daily) for 8 weeks, and the other side with 1565-nm NAFL combined with placebo cream. CBS® images and parameters, dermoscopic images and the quantitative data processed by ImageJ software, and quantitative global scarring grading system (GSS) score were obtained at baseline and after treatment. Subjects' satisfaction assessment was performed after treatment. Adverse events were recorded during treatment.

RESULTS

In CBS® parameters, the red area, red area concentration, and smoothness were improved more significantly on the 1565-nm NAFL combined with MPS cream side than on the 1565-nm NAFL combined with placebo cream side after treatment (p = 0.015, p = 0.013, and p = 0.021). For dermoscopy, both scar area and scar redness achieved a significantly greater percentage of improvement on the side of 1565-nm NAFL combined with MPS cream than the side of 1565-nm NAFL combined with placebo cream after treatment (p = 0.005 and p = 0.041). The reduction of quantitative GSS score and Subjects' satisfaction assessment were similarly superior on the 1565-nm NAFL combined with MPS cream side. Temporary erythema was experienced by all subjects after each 1565-nm NAFL treatment. No subject reported intolerance or allergy to the cream during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined application of 1565-nm NAFL and MPS cream could be an effective and safe treatment for erythematous acne scars. ImageJ software enables quantitative evaluation of dermoscopic images of acne scars.

Nonablative monopolar radiofrequency for the reduction of facial pores and sebum excretion in Thai patients: A novel approach

BACKGROUND

Enlarged facial pores are visible topographic features of the skin that have been associated with cutaneous photoaging and increased sebum production. It has remained a common dermatologic concern, gaining a significant number of in-clinic consults. Available treatment modalities often operate on a single mode of action, consequently offering limited and short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of a nonablative monopolar radiofrequency (NMRF) for pore tightening and sebum output reduction in Thai patients.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with enlarged pores underwent two sessions of NMRF treatments at 4-week intervals. The measurements of pore volume, skin texture, average pore size, sebum production, and skin elasticity were quantified using Antera® 3D imaging system, dermoscopic image analysis with ImageJ software, Sebumeter® and Cutometer®. Clinical evaluation by two dermatologists was done using blinded clinical photographs. All objective and subjective assessments were done at the baseline, a month after the first treatment, and during follow-up visits 1, 3, and 6 months after the last treatment. Adverse effects were also recorded during each visit.

RESULTS

Seventeen out of the 19 subjects completed the study protocol. The mean pore volume significantly reduced by 24% from the baseline at 1 month after the first treatment (p < 0.016). The pore volume continued to decrease by 34% and 38% a month (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p < 0.001) following the final treatment, respectively. Sebum excretion likewise significantly decreased from baseline by 39% (p = 0.002) and 36% (p < 0.001), 3 and 6 months after the second treatment, respectively. Skin texture and elasticity also significantly improved following two NMRF sessions. The objective assessments of the pore appearance corresponded to subjective clinical evaluations. The treatment was well-tolerated without significant side effects, such as dyspigmentation, textural alteration, and scarring.

CONCLUSION

NMRF appears to be effective and safe for the reduction of pore size and sebum production, with therapeutic outcomes persisting up to 6 months after two treatment sessions.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose oral isotretinoin monotherapy versus combined therapy with picosecond laser for the treatment of acne scars in Asian population

PURPOSE

Acne scars are common in patients with moderate to severe acne. Isotretinoin is the first-line treatment for those patients, but whether oral isotretinoin can improve acne scar is not clear. Picosecond lasers (FxPico) has been reported to improve acne scars. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of low-dose isotretinoin with or without FxPico treatment for acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients with acne scars were enrolled and were randomly assigned to receive low dose oral isotretinoin or not. For all the patients in both treatment groups, one side of face were randomly assigned to be treated with picosecond laser. Assessments, including photos, échelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné (ECCA) and Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, the number of lesions, melanin and erythema indexes, transepidermal water loss were assessed at 0, 1, 2, and 3 month. Side effects, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and satisfaction were recorded before and after the study.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients completed the study (24 received oral low dose isotretinoin and 20 did not). Low dose oral isotretinoin treated group showed significant improvement on ECCA (from 112.5 [50-180] to 105 [50-160]), GAGS score (from 12.6 ± 3.3 to 10.1 ± 3.0), the count of papules (from 4.3 ± 3.7 to 1.0 ± 1.5) than the blank group, and higher improvement were noticed after isotretinoin combined with FxPico. All the side effects were temporary and tolerable, no adverse effects were observed. Higher DLQI and patients' satisfaction were achieved by oral isotretinoin alone and isotretinoin combined with FxPico.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first paper showing the improvement of scars by early low dose-isotretinoin intervention with or without the combination of picosecond laser. Early intervention with oral low-dose isotretinoin is effective for the treatment and prevention of acne scars, the combined therapy with FxPico can achieve better outcome.

"The efficacy and adverse effects of treatment options for facial pores: A review article"

INTRODUCTION

Skin pores are enlarged openings of the pilosebaceous follicles that can be affected by age, gender, genetics, exposure to UV light, ethnicity, and sebum secretion. Many treatment modalities reduce facial pores' count and area, including oral and topical medications as well as different wavelengths of lasers. Finding a safe and cost-effective treatment protocol is necessary since facial pores are one of the main reasons for cosmetic complaints.

AIM

This review compares available treatment options for reducing facial pores' number and area according to the published clinical trials.

METHODS

A search on PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. Nineteen published clinical trials regarding treatment options for facial pores were included and reviewed based on the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

A total number of 591 cases (83.7% female) aged 18-80 years were included. Three assessment methods including digital imaging, physician assessment, and patient' satisfaction were used in the studies to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of each modality. Furthermore, combining different modalities increased the efficacy of reducing pores' size and number. Mild, reversible burning and erythema were common side effects.

CONCLUSION

Multiple sessions and combination therapies improve facial pores' area and number. In young patients, the focus should be on controlling sebum production, while in older patients, the focus should be on rejuvenation in addition to the control of sebum production.

The Use of Lasers and Light Devices in Acne Management: An Update

Acne vulgaris is a disease of the pilosebaceous unit and the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide. It is also associated with significant economic burden. Limitations of conventional topical and systemic treatments include long treatment course, intolerable adverse effects, antibiotic resistance, and patient compliance. Therefore, laser and light-based interventions present as alternative options over the past decade and have been used in combination with conventional pharmacological therapies and other physical modalities. An updated overview on the use of lasers and light-based devices in acne management is presented to help clinicians understand the safety and efficacy of these treatment options. The effectiveness of neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) for treating acne is supported by more high-level studies compared with other laser devices. There is limited evidence to support the use of CO₂ lasers, potassium titanyl phosphate lasers, and 1565-nm non-ablative fractional lasers for treating acne. Among light devices, photodynamic therapy is the most studied, showing higher efficacies than some of the conventional topical and oral acne therapies. Intense-pulsed light and blue light therapies also show favorable outcomes. A limitation is that most studies are non-randomized and lack a control group, and report on a variety of device settings, treatment regimens, and outcome measures, making it challenging to summarize and generalize findings. Although the use of laser and light devices to treat acne is promising, further work with randomized controlled study designs and larger sample sizes will provide improved guidance on the application of these modalities.

Energy-based devices for the treatment of acne scars: 2021 international consensus recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Acne scars are one of the most distressing and long-term consequences of acne vulgaris, with damaging effect on a person's physical, mental, and social well-being. Numerous treatment options are available including surgical and nonsurgical techniques, depending on the clinical presentation. Although considerable advances in the development of new treatment technologies and applications have been made in the last decade, international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes have not yet caught up with current knowledge and practice in many centers. The authors intend to highlight the potential utility of energy-based devices (EBDs) for acne scarring, offer recommendations for safe and efficacious treatment, and provide consensus-based EBD treatment options based on varying presentations demonstrated in a series of real-life clinical photographs.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

An international panel of 24 dermatologists and plastic surgeons from 12 different countries and a variety of practice backgrounds was self-assembled to develop updated consensus recommendations for the treatment of acne scars. A two-step modified Delphi method took place between March 2020 and February 2021 consisting of two rounds of emailed questionnaires. The panel members approved the final manuscript via email correspondence.

RESULTS

The manuscript includes a comprehensive discussion and panel recommendations regarding the following topics: 1. the role of EBD in mitigating and treating acne scars in a patient with active acne, 2. the use of various EBDs for the treatment of different acne scar types with special focus on commonly used laser platform such as vascular lasers, ablative fractional lasers (AFLs) and non-AFLs (NAFLs), 3. treatment combinations, and 4. acne scar treatments in skin of color. The last part comprised of 10 photos of real-life clinical cases with the panel recommendation treatment plan to achieve best aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

Panel members were unanimous in their view that EBDs have a role in the management of acne scars, with AFLs, NAFLs, vascular lasers, and RF devices preferentially selected by most of the panel experts. EBDs are considered a first-line treatment for a variety of acne scar types and patients without access to these treatments may not be receiving the best available care for optimal cosmetic results. Future high-quality research and updated international treatment guidelines and reimbursement schemes should reflect this status.