A Comparative Study of the Efficacy and Safety of 530~750 nm and 555~950 nm Wavelength Bands of 2nd Generation IPL in Korean Photo-Rejuvenation.
- Author:
Young Bok LEE
1
;
Hyun Jeong PARK
;
Jun Young LEE
;
Baik Kee CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Dermatology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. jylee@catholic.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Intense pulsed light;
IPL;
PR applicator;
VL applicator
- MeSH:
Asian Continental Ancestry Group;
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane;
Humans;
Pigmentation;
Skin;
Telangiectasis;
Xenon
- From:Korean Journal of Dermatology
2009;47(2):140-147
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Recently, the 2nd generation IPL with a filtered xenon flash lamp has been widely used in the dermatologic field. In disagreement with the manufacturer's intent, for Asian skin, there were some reports that the best results for vascular lesions were obtained with the PR applicator, while the best results for pigmented lesions were obtained with the VL applicator. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two different (530~750 nm PR applicator and the 555~950 nm VL applicator) wavelength bands of 2nd generation IPL in Korean photo-rejuvenation. In addition, we compared the improvement of telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and overall patient' satisfaction for both settings. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with signs of photoaging skin including irregular pigmentation and telangiectasia were treated with 2nd generation IPL (Ellipse-Flex(R), DDD, Denmark) using a split-face comparative method, comparing both sides with respect to improvement of telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Comparison of the efficacy and safety between the VL and PR applicators revealed that the VL applicator was not specific for vascular lesions and that the PR applicator was not specific for pigmented lesions. Additionally, VL is not better than PR for vascular lesions (p=0.80, McNemar test) and PR is not better than VL for pigmented lesions (p=0.80, McNemar test). Finally, improvements in skin texture were not significantly different between VL and PR (p=0.80, McNemar test). CONCLUSION: The two IPL wavelength bands were found to be effective in the treatment of photo-damaged facial skin. The difference between the two treatment procedures with regard to clinical efficacy and safety was not significant.
