Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a fractional picosecond 1064 nm laser for post‐acne erythema in adult Chinese patients

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional 1064 nm picosecond Nd:YAG laser (FPNYL) in the treatment of post‐acne erythema (PAE) of adult Chinese. Materials and methods A total of 22 patients received 1 session of treatment and were followed up at the eighth week. Primary outcomes were measured by the Clinician erythema assessment scale (CEAS). Secondary outcomes included a global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS) and patients’ assessment of satisfaction on a five‐point scale. Pain scores and adverse effects were also evaluated. Results Twenty‐two patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV were enrolled in the study and completed all treatments and follow‐up visits. The mean CEAS scores fell from 2.74 ± 0.80 to 1.95 ± 0.75 (p < 0.05). The mean GAIS of PAE improvement was 2.46 ± 0.68. Erythema percentile scores by VISIA increased from 32.63 ± 7.0 to 45.75 ± 11.45 (t = 5.442, p = 0). The patient satisfaction score was 1.86 ± 1.17. The pain scores were 3.27 ± 1.17 for the FPNYL treatment (varied from 2 to 6). There were moderate erythema and oedema, which last for 3.84 ± 0.78 days. There were overall 68.18% (15/22) patients who felt pruritus in different degrees and 27.27% patients who encountered acne eruptions (white head type). No scar, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation was found. Conclusion Treatment with fractional 1064 nm picosecond Nd:YAG laser is effective and safe for PAE of Chinese patients.

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

“…In the prospective study of Jia and colleagues 6 using fractional picosecond 1,064-nm Nd:YAG lasers, ideal laser parameters fell between a 45-picosecond pulse width, spot size of 6 mm, frequency of 10 Hz, and energy of 1.5 to 1.9 mJ/microbeam for a single treatment to avoid any hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation and to produce >25% improvement in PAE among 68.18% of patients. In a randomized trial, Kim and colleagues 7 combined 1,550-nm fractional Er:glass laser with daylight-photodynamic therapy (DL-PDT) and compared with DL-PDT alone for 2 treatments and found that the combination treatment group saw higher levels of inflammatory lesion count improvement, although both groups experienced significant improvement from baseline.…”

“…Three prospective studies, 2 of which were randomized, and 1 retrospective study examined the use of NAFL in moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris. [6][7][8][9] All were conducted in East Asian-identifying patients with majority skin types III-IV. One study used a fractional picosecond 1,064-nm Neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser (PSNYL) to evaluate postacne erythema (PAE), 1 used a fractional 1,550-nm Er:glass laser to evaluate acne lesion counts (ALC), 1 used a 1,550-nm diode laser (DL) to evaluate ALC, and 1 used a 1,565-nm laser to evaluate inflammatory lesions and scarring (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, Table 1, http://links.lww.com/DSS/ B380).…”

Fractional picosecond laser treatment of non‐acne atrophic scars and scar erythema in Chinese patients

“…17 Likewise, our results were verified by the recent finding that 1064 nm FPL treatment was effective and safe for post-acne erythema in Chinese patients. 15 The possible mechanisms of FPL treatment for scar erythema were as follows: according to the previous histopathological study, the vascular disruption during FPL treatment was most likely due to hemoglobin absorption of high-focused FPL energy, despite melanin being the first target chromophore to absorb FPL energy. 26 Furthermore, large numbers of LIOBs and LICs, which occur in superficial vessels after hemoglobin absorption of FPL energy, could lead to randomly repeated damage to cutaneous vessels.…”

“…For those patients with scar erythema, the Clinician Erythema Assessment Scale (CEAS) was used to evaluate erythema and response to FPL treatment based on the photographs (Table A2). 13,15 The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), which was completed by both the physician (PGAIS) and subjects enrolled (SGAIS), was also used to compare baseline and final visit photographs and assess changes after FPL treatment (Table A3). 15,17 In addition to SGAIS, patient satisfaction, and adverse events were recorded.…”

“…10 More and more evidence demonstrates that FPL treatment is effective for both atrophic acne scars and post-acne erythema. [13][14][15] There is, however, limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of FPL treatment for non-acne atrophic scars. 1,4,[16][17][18][19] As far as we know, it is unknown whether FPL treatment is effective and safe for Chinese patients with non-acne atrophic scars.…”