«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《中国美容医学》[ISSN:1008-6445/CN:61-1347/R]

卷:

期数:

2021年12期

页码:

75-78

栏目:

出版日期:

2021-12-10

文章信息/Info

Title:

Clinical Comparison of Broad-band and Narrow-band Intense Pulsed Light in the Treatment of Erythematous Telangiectatic Rosacea

文章编号:

1008-6455（2021）12-0075-04

作者:

段鳕芸; 周 舟; 刘太华; 詹丹丹; 张忠奎

(西部战区总医院皮肤科 四川 成都 610083 )

Author(s):

DUAN Xue-yun; ZHOU Zhou; LIU Tai- hua; ZHAN Dan- dan; ZHANG Zhong-kui

(Department of Dermatology,West Theater General Hospital,Chengdu 610083,Sichuan,China)

关键词:

强脉冲光; 完美脉冲技术; 精准脉冲光; 玫瑰痤疮; 红斑; 毛细血管扩张

Keywords:

intense pulsed light;  optimal pulse technology;  delicate pulse light;  rose acne;  erythema;  telangiectasia

分类号:

R758.73+4

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

目的：比较宽谱与窄谱强脉冲光治疗红斑毛细血管扩张型玫瑰痤疮(ETR)的疗效及安全性。方法：回顾性纳入2020年1月-2020年12月于笔者医院收治的100例红斑毛细血管扩张型玫瑰痤疮患者资料，分别采用宽谱完美脉冲技术(OPT)与窄谱精准脉冲光(DPL)进行治疗，每组50例。治疗后随访6个月，采用临床红斑评定量表(CEA)与医生整体评价法(PGA)分别评价红斑及毛细血管扩张的改善情况，采用广义线性混合模型比较不同组别及不同治疗次数患者的CEA评分及PGA评分，记录不良反应发生情况。结果：所有患者均获得完整随访。OPT组与DPL组治疗次数分别为(3.48±0.76)次、(2.98±0.45)次，差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；DPL组的能量密度明显低于OPT组[(9.340±2.11)J/cm2 vs (16.33 ±4.78)J/cm2]，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。不同组别及不同治疗次数患者之间的CEA评分、PGA评分无交互作用(F交互=0.553、1.024，P交互=0.628、0.216)，不同组别患者之间CEA评分、PGA评分的比较差异无统计学意义(F组间=0.827、2.735，P组间=0.352、0.082)，不同治疗次数患者之间CEA评分、PGA评分的比较差异有统计学意义(F次数=17.875、18.527，P次数=0.000、0.000)；随着治疗次数的增加，两组患者的红斑严重程度明显降低，毛细血管扩张清除率明显升高，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)；DPL组的不良反应发生率明显低于OPT组[6.00%(3/50) vs 20.00%(10/50)]，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论：宽谱OPT与窄谱DPL治疗ETR的疗效相当，但DPL的安全性更高，所需能量密度更低。

Abstract:

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of broad-band and narrow-band intense pulsed light(IPL) in the treatment of erythematous telangiectatic rosacea(ETR). Methods A total of 100 ETR patients were etrospectively included in our hospital from January to December 2020. Those patients were treated with broad-band optimized pulse technique(OPT) and narrow-band delicate pulse light(DPL), respectively, and 50 cases in each group. The patients were followed up for 6 months after treatment began, the clinical erythema assessment(CEA) and physician’s global assessment(PGA) was used to evaluate the improvement of erythema and telangiectasia. The CEA scores and PGA scores of patients in different groups and with different treatment times were compared by generalized linear mixed model. The occurrence of adverse reactions was recorded. Results All patients were received complete follow-up. The treatment times in OPT group and DPL group were (3.48±0.76) times and (2.98±0.45) times, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant(P＞0.05). The energy density[(9.340±2.11)J/cm2 vs (16.33±4.78)J/cm 2] in DPL group was significantly lower than that in OPT group(P＜0.05). There was no interaction effect on CEA scores and PGA scores among patients in different groups and with different treatment times( Finteraction=0.553,1.024,Pinteraction=0.628,0.216).There was no statistically significant differences on CEA scores and PGA scores among patients in different groups(Finter-group=0.827,2.735,Pinter-group=0.352,0.082).There were statistically significant differences on CEA scores and PGA scores among patients with different treatment times(Ftimes=17.875, 18.527, Ptimes=0.000, 0.000). With the increase of treatment times, the severity of erythema was decreased significantly, and the Clearance rate of telangiectasia was increased significantly in two groups(P ＜0.05). The occurrence of adverse reactions[6.00% vs 20.00%] in DPL group was significantly lower than that in OPT group(P ＜0.05). Conclusion The efficacy was similar between broad-band OPT and narrow-band DPL in the treatment of ETR, but DPL was more safety and had lower energy density.

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2022-01-18