Treatment of inflammatory facial acne vulgaris: Comparison of the 1450‐nm diode laser and conventional physical treatment

Abstract

The efficacy of the 1450-nm diode laser in the treatment of inflammatory facial acne was evaluated by comparing it with conventional physical treatment. Seventeen patients received laser treatment on the right side of the face and conventional physical treatment on the other side. The two modalities were compared through photographs, inflammatory acne lesion counts, and a patient questionnaire. Clinical response was evaluated in 16 patients. Evaluation of baseline and follow-up photographs indicated that more improvement was obtained after laser treatment than by physical treatment in six patients. In two patients, physical treatment yielded better results than laser treatment. Equal effect was obtained in eight patients. All patients had a reduction in the inflammatory acne lesion count on the laser-treated side, which was statistically significantly greater on the laser-treated side compared with the side treated physically (p=0.039, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). By the assessment of patient satisfaction, seven patients preferred laser treatment, two patients preferred physical treatment and three patients found laser treatment equal to physical treatment. Questionnaire details could not be obtained in 4 patients. This study indicates that the 1450-nm diode laser is a new option for local treatment of acne.

Identifying and appraising patient‐reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review*

“…Screening of the reference lists of these papers resulted in one additional study, making the total 255. Of these 254 were excluded …”

“…Studies that only used the PROM as an outcome measurement instrument were excluded, but study details were tabulated, per protocol. We identified 188 studies that reported treatment satisfaction as an outcome: 91 on treatment of acne 68–158 and 97 on treating acne scars (a possible sequela of acne) 159–255 . These numbers show that clinicians and researchers do consider treatment satisfaction as an important outcome.…”

“…Studies that only used the PROM as an outcome measurement instrument were excluded, but study details were tabulated, per protocol. We identified 188 studies that reported treatment satisfaction as an outcome: 91 on treatment of acne 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 ,…”