Reconceptualizing the permanence of alexandrite laser hair removal results: a long-term follow-up study

Altunel, Cemile Tuğba; Kartal, Selda Pelin

doi:10.1080/14764172.2021.1936067

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[3][4][5] The alexandrite laser is widely used for pigmented skin lesions and hair removal because of its absorption characteristics within the melanin spectrum. [6][7][8] Recently, there is growing interest in treating vascular lesions, in particular, deeper vessels with the alexandrite laser because it is relatively well-absorbed by deoxyhemoglobin and can penetrate deeper into the dermis than the PDL. [9][10][11][12][13] However, until now, the evidence on the effectiveness of alexandrite laser for rosacea is sparse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomized split‐face comparative study of long‐pulsed alexandrite plus low‐fluence Nd:YAG laser versus pulsed‐dye laser in the treatment of rosacea

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the effectiveness of long‐pulsed alexandrite laser (LPAL) with that of pulsed‐dye laser (PDL) for rosacea. Methods This was a single‐blind randomized controlled trial on 27 patients who were clinically diagnosed with rosacea. Randomly assigned split face in each patient received four times monthly treatment of LPAL plus low‐fluence Nd:YAG with the contralateral side serving as the control treated with PDL. At every visit, the erythema index (EI) was measured with skin analysis systems, and two independent dermatologists evaluated digital photographs for five‐point global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS). Results The EI significantly decreased on both treated sides (LPAL 366.5 ± 101.0 vs. 295.8 ± 90.2, p < 0.001, PDL 369.0 ± 124.3 vs. 302.7 ± 92.1, p < 0.001) 1 month after fourth treatment (visit 5). Also 3 months after the fourth treatment (visit 6), the reduction in the EI was well maintained on both sides (LPAL 360.3 ± 96.8 vs. 282.0 ± 89.2, p < 0.001, PDL 364.3 ± 121.6 vs. 281.6 ± 97.8, p < 0.001). When comparing the improvement in the EI between the two groups, the percentage reduction in the EI on the LPAL‐treated side was not inferior to the PDL‐treated side (visit 5: LPAL 18.7 ± 15.7% vs. PDL 16.4 ± 12.9%, p = 0.501 and visit 6: LPAL 21.7 ± 13.9% vs. PDL 21.9 ± 15.2%, p = 0.943). The GAIS and patient satisfaction were comparable between the LPAL and PDL sides and did not show any significant difference. No serious adverse events occurred on either of the treated sides. Conclusion This study showed that the decrease in EI in the treatment of rosacea was comparable between PDL and LPAL. Therefore, LPAL could be a promising alternative treatment option with good merits for rosacea, considering no consumables are required for device maintenance.

show abstract