Non‐ablative 1,550 nm fractional laser therapy versus triple topical therapy for the treatment of melasma: A randomized controlled split‐face study

The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), NL-1006BE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.46). 08/2010; 42(7):607 - 612. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.20937

ABSTRACT Background
Melasma is a uichronic, often relapsing skin disorder, with poor long-term results from all current therapies.Objective
To assess efficacy and safety of non-ablative 1,550 nm fractional laser therapy (FLT) as compared to the gold standard, triple topical therapy (TTT).Study designTwenty-nine patients with melasma were included in a randomized controlled observer-blinded study with split-face design. Each side of the face was randomly allocated to either 4–5 non-ablative FLT sessions (15 mJ/microbeam, 14–20% coverage) or TTT (hydroquinone 5%, tretinoin 0.05%, triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream). TTT was applied once daily for 15 weeks until the last FLT session. After this last treatment, patients were asked to apply TTT twice weekly on both sides of the face during follow-up. Improvement of melasma was assessed by patient's global assessment (PGA), patient's satisfaction, physician's global assessment (PhGA), melanin index, and lightness (L-value) at 3 weeks, and at 3 and 6 months after the last treatment.ResultsMean PGA and satisfaction were significantly lower at the FLT side (P<0.001). PhGA, melanin index, and L-value showed a significant worsening of hyperpigmentation at the FLT side. At the TTT side, no significant change was observed. At 6 months follow-up, most patients preferred TTT. Side effects of FLT were erythema, burning sensation, edema, and pain. Nine patients (31%) developed PIH after two or more laser sessions. Side effects of TTT were erythema, burning sensation, and scaling.Conclusions
Given the high rate of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, non-ablative 1,550 nm fractional laser at 15 mJ/microbeam is not recommendable in the treatment of melasma. TTT remains the gold standard treatment. Lasers Surg. Med. 42:607–612, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relatively nascent field of cosmetic dermatology has seen a rapid rise in the number of products and procedures used to restore and enhance appearance. Millions of Americans undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures every year in the United States. The constant evolution of cosmetic dermatology introduces issues of safety and efficacy, as many of the innovative products and procedures have yet to endure the test of time. Practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures will benefit from recognizing the evidence to support the safety and efficacy of current trends in cosmetic dermatology. This article updates dermatologists on the epidemiology of cosmetic procedures in the United States, reviews recent research studying the motivations of the growing numbers of cosmetic patients, and briefly reviews the safety and efficacy of some of the most popular new nonsurgical cosmetic procedures.
    Current Dermatology Reports. 1(1).
  • Dermatologic Surgery 06/2013; 39(6):889-90. · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of lasers in the treatment of melasma has been addressed in case reports, but there is no consensus in the literature regarding the safety, efficacy, or durability of laser-based treatments. Furthermore, given the potential risks of laser intervention in hyperpigmented skin, the relative risks and benefit of laser must be compared to more conservative and traditional treatment approaches. English language literature in which the main intervention was a light-based therapy and the target was melasma was analyzed. The study included only prospective, controlled studies which included at least 10 participants, and which presented the data with accepted objective and quantitative study metrics. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies reported the response to melanin-targeting lasers and five reported the response to fractional photothermolysis. The response to lasers was not consistent among the reports. Adverse events including hyperpigmentation were reported in several studies. The durability of melasma improvement was limited in all cases where laser was used as monotherapy. In studies that compared laser to topical treatments, laser-based monotherapy failed to show benefit over topical treatments. This analysis suggests that the use of lasers for the treatment of melasma cannot be recommended, due to unpredictable safety and efficacy, time-limited clinical improvement, and no clear benefit over conventional treatments.
    Lasers in Medical Science 06/2013; · 2.40 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
May 30, 2014