2940nm Er:YAG Laser and 1927nm Thulium Laser in Improving Atrophic Acne Scars
Efficacy and Safety Comparison Between Fractional 2940nm Er:YAG Laser and Fractional 1927nm Thulium Laser in the Treatment of Facial Atrophic Acne Scars
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Acne vulgaris is a chronic and recalcitrant inflammation of pilosebaceous unit that has a high incidence rate in adolescence and even adults. Acne scarring is not an uncommon cosmetic complication which will cause physical and phycological pressure and impair the life quality of patients. It can be divided into two types according to morphology: atrophic and hypertrophic acne scarring. Atrophic acne scarring can be subclassified into boxcar, icepick and rolling scarring due to morphological features. Although a great variety of modalities to treat atrophic acne scarring such as chemical peeling, lasers and light, micro-needling and radiofrequency have emerged, fractional laser (FL) have come out on top. Unlike resurfacing lasers, FL creates three-dimensional, evenly distributed "microscopic thermal zones(MTZs)"on the treating area, which only covering about 3-40% of the skin and leaving the surrounding tissue undamaged and serving as "cell reservoir". Then, the MTZs can be rapidly replaced by keratinocytes in "cell reservoir" within the first 24 hours and by new collagen within 3-6 months. FL can be categoried into fractional ablative laser(FAL) and fractional non-ablative laser(FNAL).
With a wavelength of 2940nm, FEL could be highly absorbed by water-containing tissues of skin and cause superficial epidermis ablation and collagen induction[4]. But thermal damage is limited to about 20-50um. FTL has a moderate affinity for water content tissue. Thus, rather than causing epidermis turnover, it keeps the epidermis intact. But it can penetrate deep into 200-300um and stimulate collagen regeneration. Prior studies have shown that both FAL and FNAL were effective in treating acne scarring and the former were more effective while the latter had less side effects. However, in our clinic, we have observed outstanding effect and high satisfaction rate of FTL in improving atrophic acne scarring. Since there was only one clinical trial reported the efficacy and safety of FTL in Asian and no study have made a comparison between FTL and FEL, we designed this prospective, simultaneous spilt-face trial, hoping to provide a new available modality for patients who are intolerable or reluctant to ablative lasers.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: kune K Lu, postgraduate
- Phone Number: 86 19858125820
- Email: lke225@zju.edu.cn
Study Locations
-
-
Zhejiang
-
Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, 0571
- Recruiting
- Zhejiang University
-
Contact:
- Suiqing S Cai, doctor
- Phone Number: 13957107910
- Email: 2191008@zju.edu.cn
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
age of at least 18 years clinical diagnose of facial atrophic acne scarring
Exclusion Criteria:
there was infection in the treatment site Acne vulgaris were not controlled had a propensity for keloid forming received oral isotretinoin or laser treatment in the past 3 months received chemical peeling 1 month before the study pregnancy or breast-feeding.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: right face
The right side of face of subjects
|
The right face of subjects were treated with fractional 2940nm Er:YAG laser(MCL 31 Asclepion Laser Technologies, Germany), N25 mode.
Energy was adjusted from 12 to 27J according to the severity of scarring.
All patients received 3 treatment sessions totally at an average interval of 4 to 6 weeks.
|
|
Experimental: left face
The left side of face of subjects
|
The right face of subjects were treated with fractional 2940nm Er:YAG laser(MCL 31 Asclepion Laser Technologies, Germany), N25 mode.
Energy was adjusted from 12 to 27J according to the severity of scarring.
The left face of subjects were treated with fractional 1927nm thulium laser(Lavieen, korea).
Parameters were set as stamp mode, a spot size of 5*5mm, a pulse time of 1000us, an energy intensity of 3645mJ/cm2 and a repetition of 1-3 times.
All patients received 3 treatment sessions totally at an average interval of 4 to 6 weeks.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Goodman&Baron quantitative global scarring grading system (GBS)
Time Frame: GBS change from baseline(T0) at 1 hour before the third session(T1) and 3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
It is evaluated by a blinded dermatologist.
It is a international criteria evaluating acne scar according to scar number and type.
Tpye :(A) Milder scarring(1 point each): macular erythematous or pigmented and mildly atrophic dish-like;(B)Moderate scarring(2 points each) :moderately atrophic dish-like, punched out with shallow bases, small scarring(<5mm), shallow but broad atrophic areas;(C)Severe scarring(3 points each): punched out with deep but normal bases, small scarring(<5mm), punched out with deep abnormal bases, small scarring(<5mm), linear or troughed dermal scarring, deep, broad atrophic areas.
Scar numbers:1-10(1 point each), 11-20(2 points each),>20(3 points each).
|
GBS change from baseline(T0) at 1 hour before the third session(T1) and 3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
|
self-rated acne scar improvement
Time Frame: 3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
It is evaluated by subjects themselves.
Self-rated acne scar improvement ranged from 0 to 4, 0 meant no improvement, 1 represented 1-25% improvement, 2 represented 26-50% improvement, 3 represented 51-75% improvement and 4 represented 76-100% improvement.
|
3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
|
self-rated satisfaction score
Time Frame: 3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
It is evaluated by subjects themselves.
Satisfaction score ranged from 0 to 10: 0 meant not satisfied and 10 meant very satisfied.
|
3 months after the final treatment(T2)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Pain score
Time Frame: immediately after each laser treatment
|
It is evaluated by subjects themselves with Visual analogue scale(VAS) , on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 meant no pain while 10 meant extremely painful.
|
immediately after each laser treatment
|
Other Outcome Measures
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
adverse effects
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 0.5 year
|
Adverse reactions such as pain, erythema and edema, hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation were recorded.
|
through study completion, an average of 0.5 year
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Chair: Suiqing S Cai, doctor, 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, China
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2021-0227
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.