Long‐pulsed dye laser versus intense pulsed light for photodamaged skin: A randomized split‐face trial with blinded response evaluation

Jørgensen, Gitte F.; Hedelund, Lene; Hædersdal, Merete

doi:10.1002/lsm.20634

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a randomized controlled split-face trial, Jorgensen et al [65] evaluated the efficacy and adverse effects of LPDL versus IPL therapy (Ellipse Flex, Danish Dermatologic Development; l em ¼ 530-750 nm or 555-950 nm; spot size: 10 mm Â 48 mm; pulse duration: 2 Â 2.5 milliseconds, delay: 10 or 8-20 milliseconds; fluence: 6-20 J/cm 2 ) in the treatment (three treatments; 3-week intervals) of photodamaged skin in women (n ¼ 20) with Fitzpatrick skin types I-III. One, 3, and 6 months after therapy, patients as well as blinded investigators assessed the impact on telangiectasias, pigmentation, skin texture, rhytids, treatment-related pain, adverse events, and the preferred treatment by means of photographs.…”

Section: Skin/photorejuvenationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intense pulsed light (IPL): A review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices use flashlamps and bandpass filters to emit polychromatic incoherent high-intensity pulsed light of determined wavelength spectrum, fluence, and pulse duration. Similar to lasers, the basic principle of IPL devices is a more or less selective thermal damage of the target. The combination of prescribed wavelengths, fluences, pulse durations, and pulse intervals facilitates the treatment of a wide spectrum of skin conditions. Objective: To summarize the physics of IPL, to provide guidance for the practical use of IPL devices, and to discuss the current literature on IPL in the treatment of unwanted hair growth, vascular lesions, pigmented lesions, acne vulgaris, and photodamaged skin and as a light source for PDT and skin rejuvenation. Methods: A systematic search of several electronic databases, including Medline and PubMed and the authors experience on intense pulsed light. Results: Numerous trials show the effectiveness and compatibility of IPL devices. Conclusion: Most comparative trials attest IPLs similar effectiveness to lasers (level of evidence: 2b to 4, depending on the indication). However, large controlled and blinded comparative trials with an extended follow-up period are necessary. Lasers Surg. Med. 42:93-104, 2010.

show abstract

Section: Skin/photorejuvenationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intense pulsed light (IPL): A review

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IPL patients reported more pain and as this is a patient-reported outcome and patients were not blinded to intervention we cannot tell if this pain was real or perceived [19][20][21]. However, pain of mild to moderate intensities related to IPL is a known adverse effect [23][24][25]. The IPLsystem used in this trial did not use cooling of the epidermis, which is utilized in newer IPL-systems to minimize treatment-related pain [22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, pain of mild to moderate intensities related to IPL is a known adverse effect [23][24][25]. The IPLsystem used in this trial did not use cooling of the epidermis, which is utilized in newer IPL-systems to minimize treatment-related pain [22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paring and intense pulsed light versus paring alone for recalcitrant hand and foot warts: A randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome evaluation

Togsverd‐Bo¹,

Gluud²,

Winkel³

et al. 2010

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Treatment of recalcitrant viral warts remains a therapeutic challenge. Intense pulsed light (IPL) has been suggested effective to clear wart tissue. The objective was in a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of paring followed by IPL versus paring alone for recalcitrant hand and foot warts. Materials and Methods: Eighty-nine patients with recalcitrant hand and foot warts were included and randomized (1:1) to three treatments at 3-week intervals with either paring of warts followed by IPL or paring of warts alone. IPL was given with the Ellipse Flex IPL system (Danish Dermatologic Development A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark, 400-950 nm, 5.5 millisecond pulse duration in double pulses with a 2 millisecond interval, 26.0-32.5 J/ cm 2 repetitive passes). The primary outcome was complete and partial clearance of warts evaluated by blinded photo assessment at 6 weeks after final treatment. Secondary outcomes were treatment related pain and adverse reactions. Results: We found no significant difference in clearance of warts between the two intervention groups (OR 1.64, 95% confidence interval 0.62-4.38). Paring followed by IPL resulted in complete or partial clearance of wart tissue in nine (22%) and five patients (12.2%) versus five (13.5%) and four patients (10.8%) from paring alone. Mostly plantar warts were treated (92.1%). The pain intensity after paring and IPL was moderate and significantly higher than the pain intensity after paring alone (P<0.0005). No adverse reactions were observed from the two interventions. Conclusion: Paring followed by IPL did not differ significantly from paring alone in clearance of recalcitrant hand and foot warts but caused significantly more pain.

show abstract

“…No topical anesthetic is required; however, coupling gel is applied to the skin to minimize epidermal damage and to enable the treatment of deeper target tissues. Light devices have various optical filters used to selectively target specific wavelengths of light for a more optimal treatment [3,4]. Usually more than one treatment session is required and there is virtually no downtime with this procedure, however there may be some expected transient posttreatment erythema.…”

Section: Intense Pulse Light and Broadmentioning

confidence: 99%