Various lasers have been used for the treatment of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), facial erythema (FE), and facial telangiectasias (FT). The assessment of the treatments of all of these conditions with a 577-nm pro-yellow laser has not been reported yet. The aim of this work was to assess the efficacy and safety of the 577-nm pro-yellow laser in ETR, FE, and FT. Forty patients suffering from ETR, FE, and FT (25 female and 15 male) were enrolled in this study. All of the patients were treated with 577-nm pro-yellow laser (QuadroStarPRO YELLOW® Asclepion Laser Technologies, Germany) at 4-week intervals, for one to four sessions. The assessment of the treatment was made based on the digital photographs and the percentage of fading of the erythema and telangiectasias in the lesions. Significant clinical improvement (80-100%) was observed in the first or second sessions of the treatment in FE and ETR patients and in second and fourth sessions of the treatment in FT patients. The treatment was very well tolerated. No side effect was observed except for a few patients who had mild to moderate erythema fading away in 12-24 h. This case series has shown that the pro-yellow laser is a very effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for ETR, FE, and FT.

Erythema and scarring are among the most common complications of severe inflammatory acne. In this study, we aimed to share our experience with pro‐yellow laser and document the efficacy and safety of this treatment in postacne erythema and scarring. The study included 40 patients, 24 (60%) females, and 16 (40%) males with a mean age of 29.5 ± 8.16 (min. 18 years, max. 57 years). The pro‐yellow laser was applied to all patients as a single session with irradiation of 22 J/cm2. Improvement in postacne erythema and scars were evaluated after the treatment. The study included 40 patients, 24 patients (60%) were females and 16 patients (40%) were males with the mean age of 29.5 ± 8.16 (ranged between 18 and 57 years old). A total of 21 patients (52.5%) had good improvement (51%‐75% regression), 10 patients (25%) had excellent improvement (76%‐100% regression), and a moderate improvement (26%‐50%) was detected in 9 patients (22.5%). Also, there were mild improvement (1%‐25%) in 20 patients (76.9%) and a moderate improvement (26%‐50%) in 6 patients (23.1%). We found that pro‐yellow laser is highly effective in the treatment of postacne erythema, while its effectiveness was mild to moderate in atrophic acne scars. Also, it has been observed that the pro‐yellow laser system can be used safely immediately after cessation of systemic isotretinoin treatment.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Various skin findings due to coronavirus have been identified. There are a few case reports on nail findings after coronavirus (COVID-19) infection. We aimed to document the nail findings of the COVID-19 survivors and shed light on the interesting luminescence seen under the Wood’s light. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> One hundred and seventy-four patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection in the last 100 days were grouped in terms of the agents used in the treatment. Fifty-seven volunteers without a history of infection were included. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients treated with favipiravir had a significantly higher positivity of luminescence (<i>p</i>: 0.0001). The most common nail findings in patients were splinter hemorrhage (13%), followed by leukonychia (12%) and longitudinal ridges (7.9%). <b><i>Discussion/Conclusions:</i></b> The luminescence may be seen due to the accumulation of favipiravir or its excipients (titanium dioxide and yellow ferric oxide) on the nails. Wood’s lamp examination of the plasma taken from a patient after favipiravir’s first dose revealed the same luminescence as we saw on the nails. Accordingly, this accumulation may be seen in the vital organs. Although our knowledge about the virus increases day by day, the potentially hazardous effects of the virus and long-term complications of the treatment options are still being investigated.

Background Rosacea is an inflammatory disease with 50% of ocular involvement rate. Primary demodicosis is an eruption caused by Demodex mites, and there is no data about the rate of ocular involvement in primary demodicosis. Aims In this cross‐sectional study, it is aimed to reveal the frequency of Demodex blepharitis in rosacea and primary demodicosis patients. Methods In total, 58 rosacea, 33 primary demodicosis patients, and 31 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Four samples were obtained from eyelashes with a forceps and from facial skin by standardized skin surface biopsy. A positive result is described as detecting at least one Demodex mite on an eyelash or at five mites in the face. The patients were also examined by an ophthalmologist in terms of ocular involvement. Results Both rosacea and primary demodicosis patients had significantly more complaints like burning and stinging in the eyes compared to the control patients (P = .001). Primary demodicosis and papulopustular rosacea patients had the highest numbers of eyelash mites, respectively, and significantly a higher rate of blepharitis than the control group. Conclusion As a result, the Demodex count was significantly higher in the primary demodicosis and rosacea patients than the control group. We think that every Demodex‐positive patients should be evaluated for also eyelash mites to prevent a possible chronic blepharitis.

No abstract