窄谱强脉冲光和540nm强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症临床比较分析

窄谱强脉冲光和540nm强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症临
床比较分析
王思宇;杨超;谢军;王芳;严蕾;刘刚
【期刊名称】《中国美容医学》
【年(卷),期】2016(25)2
【摘要】Objective To compare the clinical effect and safety of facial telangiectasia in treatment with narrow-spectrum intense pulsed light (DPL,550~650nm) and 540nm intense pulsed light (IPL,540-
950nm).MethodsA retrospective analysis of 82 patients with facial telangiectasia in our department was held. we divided these cases into two groups 40 patients were treated with DPL (Group A) while 42 patients were treated with 540nm IPL (Group B),and the treatment parameters were adjusted according to their immediate skin responses. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety according to observing the vascular regression in pretherapy and post-treatment and adverse reactions after the treatment. Results With the treatment lasting one to three times,the cure rate of Group A was 55.0% ,the effective rate was 87.5%. On the other hand, the cure rate of Group B was 35.7% and the effective rate was 85.7%.There were no statistically signiifcant differences between the two groups in efifcacy distribution, cure rate and effective rate.The average number of treatment in the Group A was (1.90±0.632) while the average number of treatment for Group B was (2.35±0.692),and the difference of the number
of treatment between the two groups was statistically signiifcant. The swelling rate of Group A (40.0%) was lower than that of Group B
(66.7%),the difference was statistically signiifcant,and all the adverse reactions were reversible.ConclusionThe treatment of facial telangiectasia with narrow-spectrum intense pulsed light is superior to treatment with 540nm intense pulsed light.%目的：比较窄谱强脉冲光和540nm强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症的临床疗效及安全性。

方法：回顾分析笔者科室治疗的82例面部毛细血管扩张症患者，根据不同治疗方式将其分为两组。

A组：40例，采用
窄谱强脉冲光治疗；B组：42例，采用540nm强脉冲光治疗，治疗过程中根据
患者治疗即刻反应设置治疗参数。

通过观察治疗前后血管消退情况及治疗后不良反应来评价临床有效性及安全性。

结果：经过1～3次治疗，A组患者痊愈率55.0%，有效率87.5%；B组患者痊愈率35.7%，有效率85.7%，两组间的疗效分布、痊
愈率及有效率差异没有统计学意义。

A组患者平均治疗次数为（1.90±0.632）次，B组患者平均治疗次数为（2.35±0.692）次，两组间治疗次数差异具有统计学意义。

A组的红斑肿胀率（40.0%）低于B组(66.7%)，差异具有统计学意义，所有
不良反应均为可逆性。

结论：窄谱强脉冲光较540nm强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症更具有优势。

【总页数】4页(P40-43)
【作者】王思宇;杨超;谢军;王芳;严蕾;刘刚
【作者单位】四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院皮肤病性病科四川成都 610072;四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院皮肤病性病科四川成都 610072;四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院皮肤病性病科四川成都 610072;四川省医学科学院·四川省
人民医院皮肤病性病科四川成都 610072;四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院皮肤
病性病科四川成都 610072;四川省医学科学院·四川省人民医院皮肤病性病科四川成都 610072
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】R454.2
【相关文献】
1.窄谱强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症疗效评价 [J], 杨翠霞;侯文婕;杨帅;王超;王丹;向俊妮
2.强脉冲光和超脉冲CO2激光联合治疗面部毛细血管扩张症20例临床观察 [J], 李士武;王孝碧;杨林
3.540nm强脉冲光联合丹参酮胶囊治疗面部痤疮患者的临床疗效 [J], 雷国庆;郑建辉;徐零卜
4.窄谱强脉冲光与双波长脉冲染料激光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症的疗效对比分析[J], 朱红云; 姚晓东; 崔晓美
5.窄谱强脉冲光治疗面部毛细血管扩张症疗效观察 [J], 李翔
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。