| Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of two intense pulsed light(IPL) devices for facial photoaging.Methods:Using a split-face method, twenty-six patients with photoaged skin were enrolled in this study. All subjects received five IPL treatments at 4-week intervals with Lumenis One and BBL on each side of their faces respectively. Improvement of overall photoaging was evaluated using Global Scores for Photoaging (GSP). Effect on each treated side of faces was further evaluated using 4-point scale in indexes such as wrinkles, surface texture, pigmentation and skin tightening. The Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) and self-assessment of all patients will also be recorded.Results:GSP decreased from 3.19 ± 0.75 to 2.15 ± 0.83 after 3 treatments(P＜0.05). After 5 treatments, GSP decreased to 1.85±0.88 (p＜0.05). Eight weeks after the last treatment, GSP was 1.85±0.97, indicating a enduring effect. Both treated sides of faces showed improvement in roughness, pigmentation, telangiectasia and skin tightening, with a significant difference (p＜0.05). But no significant distinction was observed with respect to wrinkles (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between two devices in terms of rejuvenation effect (P>0.05). BBL generally employed lower energy than Lumenis One. The VAS of BBL treatment was lower than that of Lumenis One. The patients’satisfaction rate was 88.46%. One patient presented blisters, purpura and pigmentation during treatments and resolved after symptomatic treatment.Conclusion:Both Lumenis One and BBL can be applied in treating facial photoaging safely and effectively, and no significant difference in effect was found between two devices. However, BBL treatment was more tolerable than Lumenis One. |
PDF Full Text Request