Buy (150 RUB)
|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription or Fee Access
Laser technologies in the treatment of patients with a combination of rosacea subtypes: comparative data
https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2024-9-80-82
Abstract
Phototechnologies occupy a leading position in the treatment of patients with rosacea. The most effective technologies are laser: pulsed dye laser (585nm, 595nm) and neodymium laser (1064nm), however, issues of comparative analysis, including in patients with a combination of rosacea subtypes, require further study.
Material and methods. We observed 64 patients with diagnosed rosacea with a combination of subtypes: erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular. Among them, 48 (75%) were female and 16 (25%) were male. The age of the patients varied widely: from 31 to 57 years, the average age was 39.2±4.6 years. The average duration of the disease was 5.1±2.3 years. Depending on the therapy, patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 received treatment with a neodymium laser, group 2 – treatment with a pulsed dye laser.
Research results. A cumulative assessment taking into account clinical research methods with a sufficient degree of reliability revealed the advantages of a neodymium laser over a pulsed dye laser, regardless of the clinical picture of rosacea, which was confirmed by the dynamics of the IGA/PGA indices: reduction in group 1 was 79.5%/66.7%, in group 2–63.2%/51.3%, respectively. These data were confirmed by the dynamics of the DIQI index – 81.7% and 61.6%, respectively.
About the Authors
A. L. Rodina
Central State Medical Academy of the Administrative Department of the President of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexandra L. Rodina - 1st year graduate student of the Department of Dermatovenereology and Cosmetology.
Moscow
Yu. I. Matushevskaya
Lyubertsy Dermatovenerologic Dispensary
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yulia I. Matushevskaya - PhD Med, chief physician.
Moscow
G. V. Sofinskaya
Institute of Plastic Surgery and Cosmetology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina V. Sofinskaya - PhD Med, cosmetologist.
Moscow
References
1. Acne and rosacea. Edited by Kruglova L. S. GEOTAR-Media. 2021. 207 p. (In Russ.).
2. Tan J., Schofer H., Araviiskaia E., et. al. Prevalence of rosacea in the general population of Germany and Russia – the RISE study. JEADV, 2015.-ес335621.
3. Two A. M., Wu W., Gallo R. L., Hata T. R. Rosacea: Рart I: introduction, categorization, histology, pathogenesis, and risk factors. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(5):749–758.
4. Steinhoff M., Schauber J., Leyden J. J. New insights into rosacea pathophysiology: a review of recent findings. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6): S 15-S 26.
5. Reinholz M., Tietze J. K., Kilian K., et al. Rosacea–S 1 guideline. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013;11(8):768–780.
6. Su D., Drummond P. D. Blushing propensity and psychological distress in people with rosacea. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2012; 19:488–495.
7. Haliou B., Cribier B., Frey M., et al. Feelings of stigmatization in patients with rosacea. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31: 163–168.
8. Agafonova E.V., Kruglova L. S., Avagumyan M. A. Genetic markers of rosacea. Bulletin of new medical technologies. 2018. T. 25, No. 4. P. 137–145. (In Russ.).
9. Egorova O. A., Agafonova E. V., Kruglova L.S. Comorbidity with rosacea. Hospital medicine: science and practice. 2018. T.1 (No. 1). P. 23–29. (In Russ.).
10. Holmes A. D., Steinhoff M. Integrative concepts of rosacea pathophysiology, clinical presentation and new therapeutics. Exp Dermatol. 2017; 26: 659–667.
11. Agafonova E. V., Kruglova L. S., Sofinskaya G. V. Rosacea: current issues of therapy using physical factors. Physiotherapist. 2018. No. 4. P. 23–33. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Rodina A.L., Matushevskaya Yu.I., Sofinskaya G.V. Laser technologies in the treatment of patients with a combination of rosacea subtypes: comparative data. Medical alphabet. 2024;(9):80-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2024-9-80-82
Views:
196
Email this article 