Akne vulgaris: Neue Studie bestätigt Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit der Lasertherapie
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Selective photothermolysis on sebaceous glands is an effective method for treating acne vulgaris (AV); however, safety, efficacy, and discomfort hinder its utilization in clinical settings. Aims: The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel 1726 nm laser with contact cooling to treat AV. Methods: Seventeen patients aged 18 to 36 were enrolled and treated in this IRB-approved, single-center, open-label study. Patients received up to three facial laser sessions up to seven weeks apart. Follow-up visits happened ten days post-session and at the 4 and 12 weeks following the final session. The investigator assessed the severity of device-related adverse events (AEs). Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) and inflammatory lesion counts (ILC) were used as metrics to evaluate acne resolution and skin condition enhancement. Patients' perspectives on satisfaction and comfort using this technology were assessed using Subject Experience Questionnaires (SEQ). Results: Safety assessment showed mild and transient AEs. All subjects tolerated anesthetics-free treatments well, with a mean treatment discomfort score of 4.9 ± 1.5. Compared to baseline, a statistically significant reduction in ILC (p = 0.003) of 52% to 56% is achieved four to twelve weeks following treatment. Long-term follow-ups showed progressive improvement 24 months post-treatment with a 97% reduction in ILC. SEQs revealed high subject satisfaction (71%) with psychosocial improvement three months post-treatment.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Akne vulgaris: Neue Studie bestätigt Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit der Lasertherapie
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2023
- Éditeur
- S. Karger AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.