TY - JOUR

T1 - Pulsed dye laser vs. intense pulsed light for port-wine stains: a randomized side-by-side trial with blinded response evaluation

AU - Faurschou, A

AU - Togsverd-Bo, K

AU - Zachariae, C

AU - Haedersdal, M

N1 - Keywords: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Lasers, Dye; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Phototherapy; Port-Wine Stain; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult Times Cited: 6ArticleEnglishFaurschou, AUniv Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Hosp, Dept Dermatol, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, DenmarkCited References Count: 21395FCWILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INCCOMMERCE PLACE, 350 MAIN ST, MALDEN 02148, MA USAMALDEN

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - BACKGROUND: Pulsed dye lasers (PDLs) are considered the treatment of choice for port-wine stains (PWS). Studies have suggested broadband intense pulsed light (IPL) to be efficient as well. So far, no studies have directly compared the PDL with IPL in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and adverse events of PDL and IPL in an intraindividual randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty patients with PWS (face, trunk, extremities; pink, red and purple colours; skin types I-III) received one side-by-side treatment with PDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, 0.45-1.5 ms; Candela Laser Corporation, Wayland, MA, U.S.A.) and IPL (StarLux, Lux G prototype handpiece, 500-670 and 870-1400 nm, 5-10 ms; Palomar Medical Technologies, Burlington, MA, U.S.A.). Settings depended on the preoperative lesional colour. Treatment outcome was evaluated by blinded, clinical evaluations and by skin reflectance measurements. RESULTS: Both PDL and IPL lightened PWS. Median clinical improvements were significantly better for PDL (65%) than IPL (30%) (P = 0.0004). A higher proportion of patients obtained good or excellent clearance rates with the PDL (75%) compared with IPL (30%) (P = 0.0104). Skin reflectance also documented better results after PDL (33% lightening) than IPL (12% lightening) (P = 0.002). Eighteen of 20 patients preferred to receive continued treatments with PDL (P = 0.0004). No adverse events were observed with PDL or IPL. CONCLUSIONS: Both the specific PDL and IPL types of equipment used in this study lightened PWS and both were safe with no adverse events. However, the PDL conveyed the advantages of better efficacy and higher patient preference.

AB - BACKGROUND: Pulsed dye lasers (PDLs) are considered the treatment of choice for port-wine stains (PWS). Studies have suggested broadband intense pulsed light (IPL) to be efficient as well. So far, no studies have directly compared the PDL with IPL in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and adverse events of PDL and IPL in an intraindividual randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Twenty patients with PWS (face, trunk, extremities; pink, red and purple colours; skin types I-III) received one side-by-side treatment with PDL (V-beam Perfecta, 595 nm, 0.45-1.5 ms; Candela Laser Corporation, Wayland, MA, U.S.A.) and IPL (StarLux, Lux G prototype handpiece, 500-670 and 870-1400 nm, 5-10 ms; Palomar Medical Technologies, Burlington, MA, U.S.A.). Settings depended on the preoperative lesional colour. Treatment outcome was evaluated by blinded, clinical evaluations and by skin reflectance measurements. RESULTS: Both PDL and IPL lightened PWS. Median clinical improvements were significantly better for PDL (65%) than IPL (30%) (P = 0.0004). A higher proportion of patients obtained good or excellent clearance rates with the PDL (75%) compared with IPL (30%) (P = 0.0104). Skin reflectance also documented better results after PDL (33% lightening) than IPL (12% lightening) (P = 0.002). Eighteen of 20 patients preferred to receive continued treatments with PDL (P = 0.0004). No adverse events were observed with PDL or IPL. CONCLUSIONS: Both the specific PDL and IPL types of equipment used in this study lightened PWS and both were safe with no adverse events. However, the PDL conveyed the advantages of better efficacy and higher patient preference.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08993.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08993.x

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 19120324

VL - 160

SP - 359

EP - 364

JO - British Journal of Dermatology

JF - British Journal of Dermatology

SN - 0007-0963

IS - 2

ER -