A Randomized, Split-Face, Comparative Study of a Combined Needle Radiofrequency/Intense Pulsed Light Device in Moderate-to- Severe Acne Patients

Background: Radiofrequency (RF) and intense pulsed light (IPL) have been reported as efficient adjuvant treatment modalities for acne vulgaris. Objective: We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a combined needle RF and vacuum IPL device for acne treatment without the use of other...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of dermatology 2024-10, Vol.36 (5), p.266
Hauptverfasser: Ki Yeon Kim, Seon Young Song, You Jin Jung, Mihn Sook Jue, Ji Yeon Hong, Beom Joon Kim, Joo Yeon Ko
Format: Artikel
Sprache:kor
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Radiofrequency (RF) and intense pulsed light (IPL) have been reported as efficient adjuvant treatment modalities for acne vulgaris. Objective: We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a combined needle RF and vacuum IPL device for acne treatment without the use of other conventional topical or oral agents. Methods: This randomized, split-faced study was designed to include patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Comedone extraction was performed on both parts of the face prior to laser treatment. One side of the face was treated with RF and IPL in 2-week intervals, while the other side was left untreated as a control. Two independent blinded investigators evaluated the patients for improvement using clinical photographs. We also assessed for possible adverse effects. Results: The study included 44 patients with acne vulgaris (27 men and 17 women). Their ages ranged from 19-39 years (average, 23 years). At the final 12-week follow-up visit, the acne reduction rate was 34.80% (±33.45%; range, 30.92%-19.03%) on the treated side and 13.76% (±37.58%; range, 28.26%-23.27%) in the control group compared to baseline, constituting a significant difference. The difference in reduction rate between the treated and control sides was 21.03% (±25.09%), with the treated side experiencing more significant improvement (p
ISSN:1013-9087