欢迎访问中国烧伤创疡杂志网站！

精准强脉冲光与宽谱强脉冲光治疗玫瑰痤疮疗效对比
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Delicate Pulsed Light and Optimal Pulse Technology - Intense Pulsed Light in the Treatment of Rosacea

杨怡,胡耀刚,孟小卉.精准强脉冲光与宽谱强脉冲光治疗玫瑰痤疮疗效对比[J].中国烧伤创疡杂志,2024,(1):74~77.

DOI：

英文关键词:Delicate pulsed light Optimal pulse technology - intense pulsed light Rosacea Erythema Telangiectasia

基金项目:

作者	单位
杨怡
胡耀刚
孟小卉

摘要点击次数: 1180

全文下载次数: 3429

中文摘要:

【摘要】目的对比分析精准强脉冲光 (DPL) 与宽谱强脉冲光 (OPT-IPL) 治疗玫瑰痤疮的临床疗效。方法选取2021年2月至2022年2月郑州市第七人民医院收治的40例玫瑰痤疮患者作为研究对象, 按照不同治疗方法将其分为 DPL 组 ( 20 例) 与 OPT-IPL 组 ( 20 例), DPL组患者采用 DPL 治疗, OPT-IPL 组患者采用OPT-IPL治疗, 对比观察两组患者皮肤含水量、经皮水分丢失量、红斑情况、临床疗效与不良反应发生情况。结果治疗 4 周后, DPL 组患者皮肤含水量、经皮水分丢失量与 OPT-IPL 组均无明显差异 ( t = 0.283、0.581, P =0.779、0.565), 临床红斑评定量表 (CEA) 评分明显低于 OPT-IPL 组 ( t = 2.566, P = 0.014); 治疗4 周后,DPL组患者中显效11例、有效8例、无效1例, 与OPT-IPL组患者的显效6例、有效11 例、无效 3例无明显差异 (Z= -1.337, P= 0.181)。治疗期间, DPL组患者不良反应发生率为 15.00%, 明显低于OPT-IPL组患者的不良反应发生率45.00% (χ2 = 4.286, P= 0.038)。结论 DPL 与 OPT-IPL 均能有效改善玫瑰痤疮患者的皮肤含水量,降低经皮水分丢失量, 修复皮肤屏障功能, 但 DPL 对红斑的改善效果更好,不良反应更少, 临床应用价值更高。

英文摘要:

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of delicate pulsed light (DPL) and optimal pulse technology - intense pulsed light (OPT-IPL) in the treatment of rosacea. Methods 40 patients with rosacea, admitted to The Seventh People’s Hospital of Zhengzhou between February 2021 and February 2022 were enrolled as research subjects, and divided into DPL group (n = 20) and OPT-IPL group (n = 20) based on the different treatments they received. Patients in the DPL group were treated with DPL, whereas patients in the OPT-IPL group were treated with OPT-IPL. The water content of skin, trans-epidermal water loss, erythema, clinical efficacy, and occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results After 4 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the water content of skin or trans-epidermal water loss between the DPL group and the OPT-IPL group (t = 0.283 and 0.581, P = 0.779 and 0.565), and the clinical erythema assessment (CEA) score was significantly lower in the DPL group compared with the OPT-IPL group (t = 2.566, P= 0.014). After 4 weeks of treatment, the clinical efficacy was evaluated as markedly effective in 11cases, effective in 8 cases and ineffective in 1 case in the DPL group, which showed no statistically significant difference compared with the OPT-IPL group (Z= -1.337, P = 0.181) -6 cases markedly effective, 11 cases effective and 3 cases ineffective. During the course of treatment, the incidence of adverse reactions in the DPL group was 15.00%, which was significantly lower than the corresponding 45.00% in the OPT-IPL group (χ2 = 4.286, P= 0.038). Conclusion Both DPL and OPT-IPL can effectively improve the water content of skin, reduce trans-epidermal water loss, and repair the skin barrier function of patients with rosacea. However, DPL does better in improving erythema and fewer adverse reactions, presenting much higher value of clinical application.