IPL vs PDL in treatment of facial erythema: A split-face study.

BACKGROUND: Lasers and noncoherent intense pulse light sources effectively treat vascular lesions. Intense pulsed light (IPL), a nonablative treatment for photorejuvenation, uses a flashlamp which emits noncoherent light between 400 and 1400 nm. The light may be filtered to target a specific chromophore. The pulsed dye laser (PDL), at 595 nm, has been the historical standard of care in the treatment of facial erythema. We sought to determine whether IPL may be used in lieu of PDL in reducing facial erythema.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether IPL may be used to treat facial erythema with equal efficacy as PDL used at nonpurpuric settings.
METHODS: Prospective investigation of a cohort of 15 subjects with unwanted bilateral facial erythema. Subjects presented for two treatments with an IPL (BBL™ BroadBand Light; Sciton, Palo Alto, CA) to one half of the face and PDL (Cynergy™; Cynosure, Westford, MA) to the other half.
RESULTS: Patients with facial erythema may be successfully treated with IPL or PDL.
CONCLUSIONS: Intense pulsed light and pulsed dye laser with nonpurpuric settings were equally effective in reducing facial erythema.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes