Explore the vast range of titles available.

Previous clinical studies have shown that pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL) are effective for treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea(ETR). This article aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL and IPL at three different wavelength bands (broad-band, single-narrow-band, and dual-narrow-band) in treating ETR. Sixty subjects with ETR were randomly categorized into four groups and received one of the following laser treatments: PDL (595 nm), IPL with Delicate Pulse Light (DPL, 500–600 nm), IPL with M22 590 (590–1200 nm), or IPL with M22 vascular filter (530–650 nm and 900–1200 nm). Four treatment sessions were administered at 4-week intervals, with one follow-up session 4 weeks after the final treatment. The efficacy of the four lasers was evaluated by comparing the clinical symptom score, total effective rate, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score before and after treatment. The safety was evaluated by comparing adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, and blister. All 60 subjects completed the study. Within-group effects showed that the clinical symptom score, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score of all four groups were significantly reduced compared to before treatment (p < 0.001). Between-group effects showed no statistically significant difference among the four laser groups. Safety analysis showed that all four lasers were safe, but the incidence of blister was higher in the M22 vascular group. Nonpurpurogenic PDL, DPL, M22 590, and M22 vascular were equally effective in treating ETR and were well-tolerated. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360251.

ABSTRACT Objective The primary aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to synthesize and compare the clinical efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) and pulsed‐dye laser (PDL) therapies for the management of rosacea. Methods The literatures were searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies investigating the use of IPL and PDL for the treatment of rosacea. Screening of the retrieved articles and data extraction were performed as per the pre‐established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome measures evaluated in this meta‐analysis included clearance rates, erythema scores, and pain scores. Results The meta‐analysis incorporated data from four studies involving a total of 141 participants. The meta‐analysis did not reveal a statistically significant difference between IPL and PDL in the rate of achieving greater than 50% clearance (RR = −0.07, 95% CI: −0.19, 0.05). However, the IPL group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of clearance exceeding 75% compared to the PDL group (RR = −0.13, 95% CI: −0.23, −0.04). The change in erythema index, a key measure of rosacea severity, was similar between the two treatment modalities (SMD = −0.15, 95% CI: −0.55, 0.26). Interestingly, the PDL group reported a notably lower VAS pain score than the IPL group (SMD = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.08, 3.00). Conclusion Either PDL or IPL appears to be effective modalities for the management of rosacea. IPL exhibits a slight advantage in achieving a higher rate of substantial (>75%) clearance, while PDL may be preferable for patients with lower tolerance for post‐treatment discomfort. However, the existing literature directly comparing these two laser/light‐based therapies is limited, warranting further well‐designed, large‐scale studies to establish the optimal treatment algorithm for this chronic inflammatory skin condition.

ABSTRACT Background Facial inflammation is a highly prevalent condition mediated by diverse etiologies, primarily manifested as facial redness, swelling, itching, pain, maculopapular rash, or even pustules. Conventional treatments such as topical or oral medications for anti‐inflammatory, antibacterial, and immunomodulatory purposes have shown limitations, particularly in the slow resolution of symptoms. While standalone laser therapy or hydrolifting may provide relatively faster symptom relief, their efficacy remains insufficiently stable or durable. Objective This prospective, comparative, and randomized clinical study aims to investigate the therapeutic effects of combining facial microneedling with intense pulse laser (IPL) and hydrolifting for facial inflammation. Methods From January 2022 to January 2024, 114 patients with facial inflammation were enrolled and randomly allocated into one experimental group and two control groups. The experimental group received triple therapy, while the control groups received either hydrolifting alone or IPL monotherapy. Therapeutic outcomes were evaluated by comparing improvements in inflammatory area reduction, aesthetic indicators, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores, and incidence of adverse events post‐treatment. Results Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences among the three groups before treatment. At 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post‐treatment, the experimental group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in inflammatory area reduction and GAIS scores compared to the control groups. Although aesthetic indicators improved in all groups, intergroup differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences in adverse event rates were observed among the groups. Conclusion This prospective, controlled, and randomized clinical study demonstrates that microneedling‐assisted IPL combined with hydrolifting yields superior and more sustained therapeutic efficacy in facial anti‐inflammatory treatment.

ABSTRACT Background To date, no definitive treatment exists for rosacea. Phototherapies, including intense pulsed light (IPL), have been reported to reduce its characteristic features of erythema and telangiectasias. Methods This multicenter, retrospective study reviewed the charts of 82 patients with vascular and pigmented rosacea who underwent treatment with the Harmony XL Pro VL/PL Cooled Applicator. Lesion coverage was assessed from photographs taken before and 3–4 months after the last treatment session. Physicians assessed aesthetic improvement using the 5‐point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Patients rated pain experienced during the session and satisfaction with outcomes. Treatment safety was monitored throughout. Results A total of 82 patients with rosacea underwent up to four IPL treatment sessions. Mean patient age was 41.9 ± 15.2 years, and most were female (84.1%), with skin type II or III (96.1%) and with facial rosacea (93.9%). Clearance of > 75% was achieved in 69.5% of the patients, and the remaining 30.5% achieved 51%–75% clearance. Physician‐rated aesthetic improvement was optimal (64.6%) or good (34.1%); minimal change was reported for one lesion. Skin type III was associated with 3.59 times higher odds of achieving high clearance compared to skin type I or II (95% CI: 1.2–11.3). Patients were mostly very highly (95.1%) or highly satisfied (3.7%) with treatment outcomes. Most patients reported low (39.0%) to medium (46.3%) pain during treatment. Apart from a blister reported by one patient, no adverse events were reported. Conclusion IPL is a safe, effective, and versatile light‐based modality for the treatment of vascular rosacea lesions in individuals of skin types I–III.

ABSTRACT Background Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic, multisystem autoimmune disease. Standard treatment typically involves corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants; however, long‐term corticosteroid use can lead to adverse cutaneous effects, including facial telangiectasia and acne vulgaris. While medical management often addresses active acne, residual telangiectasia and post‐inflammatory erythema (PIE) frequently persist as challenging cosmetic concerns. Aim To study the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) in treating facial telangiectasia and PIE in patients with SLE; to record the possible adverse reactions of this treatment. Methods We present a case of a 21‐year‐old female SLE patient with facial telangiectasia and PIE. The treatment protocol incorporated five sessions of IPL therapy using dual‐band vascular filters (530–650 nm and 900–1200 nm) along with a 590 nm filter. Results After five sessions of IPL treatment, the facial telangiectasia and PIE of the patient were improved. During the 6‐month follow‐up period, no adverse reactions and worsening of SLE were observed. Conclusions Low‐energy IPL may be a safe and effective therapeutic option for managing steroid‐induced telangiectasia and acne‐related PIE in SLE patients.

BackgroundIntense pulsed light therapy (IPL) is a new method being used to treat meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) globally. With an increasing number of studies being published, it is necessary to consider additional factors related to treatment. This review aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of IPL for the treatment of MGD.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed databases were searched through February 24, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing IPL+ meibomian gland expression (MGX) or IPL alone with control groups were included. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated to analyze the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score and Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) score, and the standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated to analyze the tear breakup time (TBUT). Heterogeneity was quantified by the I2 statistic ranging from 0 to 100%, and a random effects model was used in this meta-analysis. All analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3. All p values were calculated by the t test, and p values were regarded as statistically significant at p < 0.05. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was used to identify and evaluate bias in the literature.ResultsNine studies with a total of 539 patients were included. Eight studies examined TBUT, six examined OSDI scores, and four examined SPEED scores. IPL combined with MGX showed superiority regarding the TBUT (SMD 2.33, 95% CI 1.04–3.61), and OSDI scores (WMD 11.93, 95% CI − 17.10 to − 6.77), with high heterogeneity. The SPEED scores were not significantly different.ConclusionsIPL combined with MGX may be an effective and safe treatment for MGD, but it cannot improve all symptoms. IPL alone is not superior to MGX. The efficacy is also affected by the number and average frequency of treatments. The efficacy of IPL may decrease within 6 months after the last treatment, so it should be considered a long-term adjuvant therapy combined with MGX. When patients receive 3 or 4 treatments (once every 3–4 weeks), a return visit at 6 months after the last treatment is required.

This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) therapy for chalazion treatment while also exploring potential variations in sensitivity among different types of chalazion. A total of 149 patients were selected to receive tobramycin combined with IPL treatment and tobramycin combined with hot compress. The treatment groups were divided into cystic type and granulomatous type according to different clinical manifestations. The course of treatment was 3 weeks. The improvement was based on the ultrasound measurement of the masses reduction of more than 50% or disappearance. In the IPL group, 17 (22.67%) cases were cured, 39 (52.00%) were effective, and 19 (25.33%) were ineffective. This includes: cystic type was cured in 3 (15.79%), effective in 5 (26.32%) cases, ineffective in 11 (57.89%) cases; granulomatous type was cured in 14 (25.00%) cases, effective in 34 (60.71%) cases, ineffective in 8 (14.29%) cases. In the hot compress group, 5 (6.76%) cases were cured, 16 (21.62%) cases were effective and 53 (71.62%) cases were ineffective. The cystic type was cured in 2 (8.00%) cases, effective in 3 (12.00%) cases and ineffective in 20 (80.00%) cases; the granulomatous type was cured in 3 (6.12%) cases, effective in 13 (26.53%) cases and ineffective in 33 (67.35%) cases. The cure rate and efficacy rate of IPL treatment is higher than that of hot compress treatment, the treatment effect of IPL treatment on granulomatous chalazion is better than that on cystic type.

Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) is an effective treatment option for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). This study retrospectively examined the differences in tear film and MG-related parameters before IPL therapy between responsive and nonresponsive patients. Overall, 73 patients with MGD who received at least three IPL treatments at 4-week-intervals between January 2022 and December 2023 were included. The patients were followed up for over 3 months. IPL was considered effective if both the symptom score and meibum grade improved by ≥ 4 and ≥ 1, respectively. Of the 73 patients, 58 were in the responsive group and 15 in the nonresponsive group. No significant differences were observed regarding age, sex, number of treatments, or SPEED-based symptoms between responsive and nonresponsive groups. However, the nonresponsive group had significantly lower plugging and vascularity grades ( P  = 0.008, < 0.001, respectively) and significantly higher upper meibum grade and meiboscore ( P  = 0.001, 0.011, respectively). Meibography revealed significant upper and lower gland dropout ( P  = 0.025, 0.007) and extreme thinning ( P  = 0.002, 0.001) in the nonresponsive group. No significant differences were observed in FBUT, CFS, or Schirmer values. Patients with gland dropout, extreme thinning, and poor upper meibum quality showed resistance to IPL despite fewer eyelid margin findings. Meibography is essential for predicting IPL prognosis.

Vitiligo patients may desire laser hair removal, skin rejuvenation, vascular treatments, and other laser or intense pulsed light (IPL) assisted treatments. However, there is a risk of inducing new depigmented patches (Koebner phenomenon). In absence of guidelines on the safe use of laser or IPL in vitiligo patients, dermatologists tend to be reluctant to administer these treatments. The aim of this survey study was to provide an estimation of the occurrence and related risk factors of laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo. A cross-sectional survey study was performed among 15 vitiligo experts from 11 countries, with 14 questions about affected patients, involved laser/IPL treatments and the physicians’ approach. In a total of 11,300 vitiligo patients, laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo was reported in 30 patients (0.27%). Of these, 12 (40%) patients had a medical history of vitiligo and seven (58%) of these patients had stable (> 12 months) vitiligo before the treatment. Most frequently reported were hair removal procedures and localization of the face and legs. Side effects like blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 56.7% of the cases. These vitiligo experts based their advice on the risk of the laser treatment on stability of the vitiligo (43%) and activity signs (50%), and 50% discuss the risks before starting a laser treatment. Relevant activity signs are the Koebner phenomenon (57.1%), confetti-like lesions (57.1%) and hypochromic borders (50%). Laser-induced leukoderma or vitiligo is an uncommon phenomenon. Remarkably, a minority had a medical history of vitiligo of which 58% were stable. Consequently, most cases could not have been prevented by not treating vitiligo patients. However, a majority had laser/IPL-induced skin damage. Therefore, caution is advised with aggressive settings and test-spots prior to the treatment are recommended. This study showed significant variation in the current recommendations and approach of vitiligo experts regarding laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo.

This investigation aims to observe the effects of demodex infection and meibomian gland function in recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES), as well as the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) in treating RCES. The study enrolled thirty patients diagnosed with RCES (30 eyes) alongside a control group of thirty-one individuals (31 eyes). Both cohorts underwent a series of diagnostic evaluations, including eyelash sampling, Demodex mite enumeration, infrared imaging of the meibomian glands, and blepharolipin scoring. The RCES subjects were further categorized into two subgroups upon stabilization for comparative analysis of treatment outcomes: the RCES-A subgroup received IPL therapy (16 patients), and the RCES-B subgroup was administered medication treatment (14 patients). Post-treatment, all participants were re-evaluated using the initial diagnostic procedures to monitor for recurrence. Preliminary findings indicated significant differences between the RCES and control groups in terms of meibomian gland scores (4 [3.0, 4.0] vs. 2 [1.0, 3.0]), blepharolipin scores (15.5 [11.0, 16.8] vs. 8.0 [5.5, 10.0]), and lid margin scores (3.0 [2.8, 3.0] vs. 2.0 [1.0, 3.0]), with P  < 0.01 for all comparisons. Additionally, the Demodex count was significantly higher in the RCES group (8.0 [4.0,9.0]) compared to the control (0 [0, 2]) (Z = − 4.13, P  = 0.00), with a Demodex positivity rate of 83.3% in the RCES group versus 38.7% in the control group (χ2 = 7.60, P  < 0.01). Post-treatment, the RCES-A subgroup exhibited significant improvements in meibomian gland loss scores, blepharolipin scores, lid margin abnormality scores, and a reduction in Demodex counts ( P  < 0.01), with a post-treatment Demodex positivity rate of 56.3% ( P  = 0.11). During the follow-up, the RCES-A subgroup experienced a lower relapse rate compared to the RCES-B subgroup (1 vs. 6 patients). The findings suggest a correlation between meibomian gland dysfunction and Demodex infestation with the incidence of RCES. The application of IPL therapy in combination with meibomian gland massage demonstrates significant potential in enhancing meibomian gland functionality, reducing Demodex counts, and effectively mitigating the recurrence of RCES. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ChiCTR2000039494 (30/10/2020).