强脉冲光和脉冲染料激光595nm治疗面部毛细血管扩张的比较研究

目的：评价强脉冲光（Intense Pulsed Light，IPL）560～1200nm／590～1200nm和脉冲染料激光595nm不同波长治疗面部毛细血管扩张症的临床有效性。方法：301例患者随机分为3组，A组（IPL560～1 200nm）124例，B组（IPL590～1200nm）79例，C组（脉冲染料激光595nm）98例。分别治疗1～4次，间隔时间4～6周。观察其血管清除率。结果：A、B、C组术中血管完全消失分别为66例（53．23％）、34例（43．04％）、74例（75．51％）；治愈分别为79例（63．71％）、41例（51．90％）、81例（82．65％）；平均治愈次数分别为2．66次、2．85次、1．65次。A、B、C三组总体比较差别具有统计学意义；A、B两组比较差别具有统计学意义；A、C两组和B、C两组比较差别具有统计学意义。结论：IPL560～1200nm／590～1200nm和脉冲染料激光595nm三种波长对面部毛细血管扩张均有可靠疗效，脉冲染料激光595nm波长治愈率优于IPL560～1200nm／590～1200nm波长。

Comparison of intense pulsed light to 595nm pulsed dye laser for treatment of facial telangiectasia:a pilot study

Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate efficacy of intense pulsed light （IPL560-1 200nm/590-1 200nm） and pulsed dye laser （595nm） in treatment for facial telangiectasia. Methods 301 consecutive patients with facial telangiectasia were randomly divided into three groups： group A（124） were treated with IPL560-1200nm; group B （79）were treated with IPL590-1200nm; group C （98） were treated with pulsed dye laser （595nm）. They were treated one and to four times with IPL or PDL. The interval was four to six weeks between two treatments. The ratio of elangiectasia disappeared was observed. Results The proportion of elangiectasia disappeared entirely from group A, group B and group C were 53.23%, 43.04% and 75.51% respectively. The cure rate were 63.71%（group A）, 51.90%（group B） and 82.65%（group C） respectively. The advantage number of treatment times were 2.66 （group A）, 2.85 （group B） and 1.65 （group C） respectively. There is significant difference between group A and group C, or group B and group C. There is no difference between group A and group B. Conclusion The three groups laser and light sources were both efficient to treat facial telangiectasia. This study suggested that PDL is the superior to IPL560-1200nm/590-1200nm in treatment for facial telangiectasia.