Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Drugs Dermatol. 2007 Oct;6(10):1024-8.

Intense pulsed light versus advanced fluorescent technology pulsed light for photodamaged skin: a split-face pilot comparison.

Author information

1
Vancouver Laser & Skin Care Centre Inc, Vancouver, BC, Canada. info@vancouverlaser.com

Abstract

Intense pulsed light (IPL) has been a popular nonablative treatment of photodamage. A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, split-face pilot study compared the efficacy and safety of 2 multitechnology broadband pulsed light platform devices: an IPL device (Lumenis One, Lumenis Corporation, Santa Clara, CA) and a fluorescent pulsed light with advanced fluorescent technology (AFT, Harmony System, Alma Lasers, Buffalo Grove, IL) device. Eight volunteer subjects (skin types I-IV) with a 2.0 mean Global Score for Photoaging (scale 0-4) participated in the study. Subjects received 3 to 5 treatments 3 weeks apart in which one side of the face was treated with the IPL device and the other side with the AFT device. During each treatment session, the face received 3 complete passes without anesthesia. Treatment was aggressive and parameters were determined by test spot application. Treatment endpoints were mild erythema. Results were evaluated by clinical observations of the investigator and comparison of pre- and post-treatment photographs by subjects and 2 blinded dermatologists. Blinded evaluators agreed that improvements in dyspigmentation, telangiectasias, erythema, and skin texture were similar on both sides of the face. Subject assessments of discomfort during treatment were also comparable. Adverse effects were not observed.

PMID:
17966180
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center