Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology

APR 2018

An evidence-based, peer-reviewed journal for practicing clinicians in the field of dermatology

Issue link: https://jcadonline.epubxp.com/i/959274

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 43 of 61

44 JCAD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND AESTHETIC DERMATOLOGY April 2018 • Volume 11 • Number 4 O R I G I N A L R E S E A R C H at Weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12 of the study. The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki on the ethical conduct of medical research. Written consent for participation and use of photos and photographic documentation was completed during each visit. on risk/benefit analysis. Protective eye glasses were worn during the entire period of the procedure by both the patient and the treating physician. Transparent gel was applied over the entire face. The IPL therapy was performed using a cutoff filter of 530nm to 1,200nm wavelengths in continuous mode with 7.0J/cm² fluence with three milliseconds of pulse width. Six passes were performed over the entire face followed by six passes of two subpulses (double mode) of 14.2J/cm² (7.1J/cm²+7.1J/cm²) fluence over the lesion only. Mild erythema was noted immediately after the treatment. Cooling was achieved with the application of ice packs for 15 minutes immediately after the treatment and followed by the application of topical mometasone furoate 0.01% cream and broad-spectrum sunscreen. The erythema and stinging subsided within 30 minutes. The procedure was repeated each week for a total of six weeks. Assessment. The efficacy of the IPL therapy was assessed on the scale shown in Table 1, depending upon the lesion count. Patient and physician scores were assessed at Week 1 and Week 6 after the last treatment. A blinded evaluator assessed the efficacy of IPL treatment in all cases at each session for a given patient. Clinical photographs were also reviewed to determine the efficacy. RESULTS A total of 100 female patients participated in this study. Out of these 100 patients, seven patients dropped out of the study (4 due to intolerance of the procedure and 3 were lost to follow-up), and the remaining 93 patients completed the study. The treatment sessions were well-tolerated by all of the patients. Four of the 93 patients who completed the study developed mild erythema after the second treatment session, which subsided completely following seven days of sunscreen protection immediately following the session. There were no long-term or severe adverse events. The immediate cutaneous response was mild-to- moderate erythema and stinging in all patients, TABLE 1. Efficacy of intense pulsed light therapy according to lesion count SCORE IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION % RANGE 1 No improvement 0 2 Poor 1–24 3 Fair 25–49 4 Good 50–74 5 Exellent 75–100 A A A B B B FIGURE 1. A) Baseline and B) Week 6 after) treatment using intense pulsed light therapy.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology - APR 2018