Efficacy and safety of red light and daylight photodynamic therapy in treatment of facial acne vulgaris
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0290.2024.05.015
- VernacularTitle:红光与日光光动力治疗面部寻常痤疮的疗效和安全性分析
- Author:
Shuangshuang ZHU
1
;
Sha PENG
;
Limei LI
;
Yuyu LI
;
Xixi YE
;
Yunlu ZHANG
;
Qiao LING
Author Information
1. 重庆市中医院皮肤科，重庆 400011
- Keywords:
Acne vulgaris;
Photodynamic therapy;
Treatment outcome;
Red light photodynamic;
Sunlight photodynamic
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Aesthetics and Cosmetology
2024;30(5):488-493
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of red light and daylight photodynamic therapy in the treatment of facial common acne.Methods:From March 2019 to November 2019, 52 patients with facial common acne who received 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy in the Department of Dermatology, Chongqing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were enrolled, including 34 males and 18 females, aged 18-35 years, with an average age of 23.2 years. A 5% concentration of 5-aminolevulinic acid was applied to the entire face, with the right side of the face being exposed to red light for 20 minutes and the left side to daylight for 2 hours. The treatment was administered once a week for a total of 4 sessions. After the treatment, the acne remission, adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction on both sides of the face were compared.Results:Compared with before treatment, the number of inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions on both sides of the face in the enrolled patients decreased, and there was no significant difference in the clearance rate of skin lesions between the two sides [53.7% (28/52) vs 59.1% (31/52), χ 2=0.89, P>0.05]. The overall effective rate on the red light side was 88.5% (46/52), and 82.7% (43/52) on the daylight side, with no significant difference between the two (χ 2=0.38, P>0.05). In terms of adverse reactions, mild erythema was common, and it was less on the daylight side than on the red light side [34.6% (18/52) vs 19.2% (10/52), χ 2=5.98, P<0.05]. During the treatment period, the pain score on the daylight side decreased compared to the red light side [(7.6±2.3) vs (4.1±1.3), t=13.10, P<0.001]. Overall satisfaction with the daylight side was reported in 49 cases (94.2%), and with the red light side in 37 cases (71.2%), with the daylight side being higher than the red light side, and the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=9.60, P<0.05). Conclusion:Daylight photodynamic therapy is as effective as red light photodynamic therapy for common acne, but it produces fewer adverse reactions and higher patient satisfaction.
