摘要
目的:观察两种强脉冲光治疗红斑毛细血管扩张型玫瑰痤疮的效果对比。方法:回顾性分析2020年10月-2021年10月笔者医院收治的86例红斑毛细血管扩张型玫瑰痤疮患者临床资料,根据患者治疗方法进行分组,将进行窄谱强脉冲光(Dye pulse light,DPL)治疗的患者纳入观察组(n=44),将进行宽谱强脉冲光(Optimal pulse technology-intense pulsed light,OPT-IPL)治疗的患者纳入对照组(n=42)。分析两组患者治疗前、治疗1次、治疗2次、治疗3次后面部改善情况[临床红斑评定量表(Clinic erythema assessment,CEA)]、面部红斑分值(VISIA)差异,比较两组患者治疗1次、治疗2次、治疗3次后皮损情况[医生整体评价法(Physician’s Global Assessment,PGA)]差异,探究两组患者治疗期间不良反应差异。结果:治疗1次、治疗2次、治疗3次后两组患者CEA得分均较治疗前下降(P<0.05),治疗3次后,观察组患者CEA得分低于对照组(P<0.05);治疗1次、治疗2次、治疗3次后两组患者VISIA分值均较治疗前下降(P<0.05),治疗2、3次后,观察组患者VISIA分值均低于对照组(P<0.05);治疗2次、治疗3次后两组患者PGA评分均较治疗前上升(P<0.05),且观察组患者PGA评分均高于对照组(P<0.05);治疗期间,观察组患者不良反应总发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:DPL治疗红斑毛细血管扩张型玫瑰痤疮效果优于OPT-IPL,且安全性更好。
Objective To observe the effects of two kinds of intense pulsed lights in the treatment of erythema telangiectatic rosacea.Methods The clinical data of 86 patients with erythema telangiectatic rosacea treated in the hospital were retrospectively analyzed between October 2020 and October 2021,and the patients were grouped according to the treatment methods.The patients undergoing dye pulsed light(DPL)were included in the observation group(n=44),and the patients treated with optimal pulse technology-intense pulsed light(OPT-IPL)were enrolled as the control group(n=42).The diff erences in facial improvement[Clinical Erythema Assessment(CEA)]and facial erythema score(VISIA)before treatment and after once,twice and three times treatments were analyzed in the two groups of patients.Differences in skin lesions[Physician’s Global Assessment(PGA)]of the two groups were compared after once,twice and three times treatment,and the diff erences in adverse reactions during treatment in the two groups were explored.Results The CEA scores in the two groups after once,twice and three times treatments were reduced compared to before treatment(P<0.05),and the CEA score after three times treatment in the observation group was lower than that in the control group(P<0.05).The VISIA scores after once,twice,and three times treatments in the two groups were decreased compared with those before treatment(P<0.05),and the VISIA scores in the observation group after twice and three times treatments were lower than those in the control group(P<0.05).After twice and three times treatments,the PGA scores in both groups were enhanced compared with those before treatment(P<0.05),and the PGA scores after twice and three times treatments in the observation group were higher compared to the control group(P<0.05).During treatment,the total incidence rate of adverse reactions was lower in the observation group than that in the control group(P<0.05).Conclusion DPL is more eff ective and safer than OPT-IPL in the treatment of erythema telangiectatic rosacea.
作者
钱佳丽
刘久利
何静岩
王菲菲
曹洋
QIAN Jiali;LIU Jiuli;HE Jingyan;WANG Feifei;CAO Yang(Department of Dermatology,Shunyi Hospital,Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Beijing 101300,China;Department of Dermatology,Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Capital Medical University,Beijing 100010,China)
出处
《中国美容医学》
CAS
2023年第7期110-113,共4页
Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine
关键词
宽谱强脉冲光
窄谱强脉冲光
毛细血管扩张型
玫瑰痤疮
optimal pulse technology-intense pulsed light
dye pulsed light
telangiectatic
rosacea
