BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and side effects of CO(2) laser resurfacing and intense pulsed light (IPL) rejuvenation for treatment of perioral rhytides. METHODS:Twenty-seven female subjects with perioral rhytides (class I-III) were randomly treated with either CO(2) laser or IPL (three monthly treatments). Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and blinded photographs up to 12 months postoperatively. Side effects were assessed clinically. Non-invasive measurements included: trans epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin reflectance, skin elasticity, and ultrasound. RESULTS:CO(2) laser resurfacing resulted in higher degrees of patient satisfaction and clinical rhytide reduction compared to IPL rejuvenation up to 12 months postoperatively (patient evaluations, P < 0.05) (observer evaluations, P < 0.008). Laser-induced side effects included erythema, dyspigmentation, and milia whereas no side effects were observed after IPL rejuvenation. Non-invasive measurements showed a significant higher reduction of the subepidermal low-echogenic band in CO(2) laser treated areas versus IPL treated areas (12 months postoperatively, P < 0.001). Skin elasticity (expressed as Young's modulus) increased in both groups (P = ns). One month postoperatively a significant increase in TEWL values (P < 0.009) and skin redness% (P < 0.02) was found in CO(2) laser treated patients versus IPL treated patients. No significant differences were seen in skin pigmentation% during the observation period. CONCLUSION:CO(2) laser resurfacing induces a significantly higher degree of clinical rhytide reduction followed by considerably more side effects compared to IPL rejuvenation in a homogeneous group of patients. Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and side effects of CO(2) laser resurfacing and intense pulsed light (IPL) rejuvenation for treatment of perioral rhytides. METHODS: Twenty-seven female subjects with perioral rhytides (class I-III) were randomly treated with either CO(2) laser or IPL (three monthly treatments). Efficacy was evaluated by patient self-assessments and blinded photographs up to 12 months postoperatively. Side effects were assessed clinically. Non-invasive measurements included: trans epidermal water loss (TEWL), skin reflectance, skin elasticity, and ultrasound. RESULTS:CO(2) laser resurfacing resulted in higher degrees of patient satisfaction and clinical rhytide reduction compared to IPL rejuvenation up to 12 months postoperatively (patient evaluations, P < 0.05) (observer evaluations, P < 0.008). Laser-induced side effects included erythema, dyspigmentation, and milia whereas no side effects were observed after IPL rejuvenation. Non-invasive measurements showed a significant higher reduction of the subepidermal low-echogenic band in CO(2) laser treated areas versus IPL treated areas (12 months postoperatively, P < 0.001). Skin elasticity (expressed as Young's modulus) increased in both groups (P = ns). One month postoperatively a significant increase in TEWL values (P < 0.009) and skin redness% (P < 0.02) was found in CO(2) laser treated patients versus IPL treated patients. No significant differences were seen in skin pigmentation% during the observation period. CONCLUSION:CO(2) laser resurfacing induces a significantly higher degree of clinical rhytide reduction followed by considerably more side effects compared to IPL rejuvenation in a homogeneous group of patients. Copyright 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.