Loading…

The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty

Background/Objective Various techniques for blepharoplasty have been described, including those performed with the assistance of the short pulse carbon dioxide laser and those performed with the assistance of the Colorado microdissection needle attached to an electrocautery unit. Although the superi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Lasers in surgery and medicine 2008-02, Vol.40 (2), p.159-164
Main Authors: Rokhsar, Cameron K., Ciocon, David H., Detweiler, Susan, Fitzpatrick, Richard E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43
container_end_page 164
container_issue 2
container_start_page 159
container_title Lasers in surgery and medicine
container_volume 40
creator Rokhsar, Cameron K.
Ciocon, David H.
Detweiler, Susan
Fitzpatrick, Richard E.
description Background/Objective Various techniques for blepharoplasty have been described, including those performed with the assistance of the short pulse carbon dioxide laser and those performed with the assistance of the Colorado microdissection needle attached to an electrocautery unit. Although the superiority of the carbon dioxide laser to cold steel has been demonstrated for the performance of eyelid blepharoplasty, no studies have ever compared the carbon dioxide laser to the Colorado needle. Study Design/Materials and Methods This is a paired comparison study in which 12 healthy patients underwent bilateral blepharoplasty of their upper and/or lower eyelids by a single surgeon. For each patient, a short pulse carbon dioxide laser was used on one side, and a Colorado needle attached to an electrocautery unit was used on the other. Intraoperative times were recorded. At five post‐operative visits patients were evaluated for post‐operative healing parameters including edema, erythema, scar width, and bruising. Finally, excised tissue was assessed histologically for thermal damage. Results Comparing both techniques, no difference in patient or physician‐measured parameters of healing were noted up to 1 month post‐operatively. However, Colorado needle assisted blepharoplasty resulted in slightly shorter intraoperative times. It also resulted in less thermal damage on a histologic level, although these differences were not clinically significant. Conclusions For the performance of blepharoplasty, the Colorado needle tip with electrocautery offers benefits equivalent to those of the short pulsed CO2 laser but has the advantage of shorter intraoperative times and lower cost. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:159–164, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/lsm.20604
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70356157</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70356157</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFuEzEQhi0EomnhwAsgn5A4bDte79rZI4ogqQgFRBFHy7FnFYMTb20v6R55cwwJcOI0c_j-fzQfIc8YXDKA-sqn3WUNApoHZMagE1XHgD0kM2Bln0NXn5HzlL4CAK9BPiZnbM5B1I2YkR-3W6RpG2Kmw-gTUqPjJuypdeHeWaReJ4z0O8Y0JpoLa4IPUdtA94jWI81uoAeXtxQ9mhyD0WPGONE-RDoOQwnrvaU-HMqGE3pn6cbjsNUxDKU8T0_Io16Xy09P84J8fvP6drGq1u-X14tX68rwTjSVET1nRmouWy71XEtTG9F0DdrWNL0xrC8qrJy3wBoQbWc0110vesE0mE3f8Avy4tg7xHA3Yspq55JB7_Uew5iUBN4K1soCvjyCJoaUIvZqiG6n46QYqF--VfGtfvsu7PNT6bjZof1HngQX4OoIHJzH6f9Nav3p3Z_K6phwKeP934SO35SQ5Xv15WapPqxWb-Xy441a8J_uapwI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70356157</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Rokhsar, Cameron K. ; Ciocon, David H. ; Detweiler, Susan ; Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rokhsar, Cameron K. ; Ciocon, David H. ; Detweiler, Susan ; Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Objective Various techniques for blepharoplasty have been described, including those performed with the assistance of the short pulse carbon dioxide laser and those performed with the assistance of the Colorado microdissection needle attached to an electrocautery unit. Although the superiority of the carbon dioxide laser to cold steel has been demonstrated for the performance of eyelid blepharoplasty, no studies have ever compared the carbon dioxide laser to the Colorado needle. Study Design/Materials and Methods This is a paired comparison study in which 12 healthy patients underwent bilateral blepharoplasty of their upper and/or lower eyelids by a single surgeon. For each patient, a short pulse carbon dioxide laser was used on one side, and a Colorado needle attached to an electrocautery unit was used on the other. Intraoperative times were recorded. At five post‐operative visits patients were evaluated for post‐operative healing parameters including edema, erythema, scar width, and bruising. Finally, excised tissue was assessed histologically for thermal damage. Results Comparing both techniques, no difference in patient or physician‐measured parameters of healing were noted up to 1 month post‐operatively. However, Colorado needle assisted blepharoplasty resulted in slightly shorter intraoperative times. It also resulted in less thermal damage on a histologic level, although these differences were not clinically significant. Conclusions For the performance of blepharoplasty, the Colorado needle tip with electrocautery offers benefits equivalent to those of the short pulsed CO2 laser but has the advantage of shorter intraoperative times and lower cost. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:159–164, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-8092</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9101</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lsm.20604</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18306246</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>blepharoplasty ; Blepharoplasty - adverse effects ; Blepharoplasty - instrumentation ; carbon dioxide laser ; Cohort Studies ; Colorado microdissection needle ; Electrocoagulation - adverse effects ; Electrocoagulation - instrumentation ; Female ; Humans ; Laser Therapy - adverse effects ; Laser Therapy - instrumentation ; Lasers, Gas - therapeutic use ; Male ; Microdissection - instrumentation ; Middle Aged ; Needles ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2008-02, Vol.40 (2), p.159-164</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18306246$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rokhsar, Cameron K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciocon, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Detweiler, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><title>The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty</title><title>Lasers in surgery and medicine</title><addtitle>Lasers Surg. Med</addtitle><description>Background/Objective Various techniques for blepharoplasty have been described, including those performed with the assistance of the short pulse carbon dioxide laser and those performed with the assistance of the Colorado microdissection needle attached to an electrocautery unit. Although the superiority of the carbon dioxide laser to cold steel has been demonstrated for the performance of eyelid blepharoplasty, no studies have ever compared the carbon dioxide laser to the Colorado needle. Study Design/Materials and Methods This is a paired comparison study in which 12 healthy patients underwent bilateral blepharoplasty of their upper and/or lower eyelids by a single surgeon. For each patient, a short pulse carbon dioxide laser was used on one side, and a Colorado needle attached to an electrocautery unit was used on the other. Intraoperative times were recorded. At five post‐operative visits patients were evaluated for post‐operative healing parameters including edema, erythema, scar width, and bruising. Finally, excised tissue was assessed histologically for thermal damage. Results Comparing both techniques, no difference in patient or physician‐measured parameters of healing were noted up to 1 month post‐operatively. However, Colorado needle assisted blepharoplasty resulted in slightly shorter intraoperative times. It also resulted in less thermal damage on a histologic level, although these differences were not clinically significant. Conclusions For the performance of blepharoplasty, the Colorado needle tip with electrocautery offers benefits equivalent to those of the short pulsed CO2 laser but has the advantage of shorter intraoperative times and lower cost. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:159–164, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>blepharoplasty</subject><subject>Blepharoplasty - adverse effects</subject><subject>Blepharoplasty - instrumentation</subject><subject>carbon dioxide laser</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Colorado microdissection needle</subject><subject>Electrocoagulation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Electrocoagulation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laser Therapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Laser Therapy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Lasers, Gas - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Microdissection - instrumentation</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0196-8092</issn><issn>1096-9101</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMFuEzEQhi0EomnhwAsgn5A4bDte79rZI4ogqQgFRBFHy7FnFYMTb20v6R55cwwJcOI0c_j-fzQfIc8YXDKA-sqn3WUNApoHZMagE1XHgD0kM2Bln0NXn5HzlL4CAK9BPiZnbM5B1I2YkR-3W6RpG2Kmw-gTUqPjJuypdeHeWaReJ4z0O8Y0JpoLa4IPUdtA94jWI81uoAeXtxQ9mhyD0WPGONE-RDoOQwnrvaU-HMqGE3pn6cbjsNUxDKU8T0_Io16Xy09P84J8fvP6drGq1u-X14tX68rwTjSVET1nRmouWy71XEtTG9F0DdrWNL0xrC8qrJy3wBoQbWc0110vesE0mE3f8Avy4tg7xHA3Yspq55JB7_Uew5iUBN4K1soCvjyCJoaUIvZqiG6n46QYqF--VfGtfvsu7PNT6bjZof1HngQX4OoIHJzH6f9Nav3p3Z_K6phwKeP934SO35SQ5Xv15WapPqxWb-Xy441a8J_uapwI</recordid><startdate>200802</startdate><enddate>200802</enddate><creator>Rokhsar, Cameron K.</creator><creator>Ciocon, David H.</creator><creator>Detweiler, Susan</creator><creator>Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200802</creationdate><title>The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty</title><author>Rokhsar, Cameron K. ; Ciocon, David H. ; Detweiler, Susan ; Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>blepharoplasty</topic><topic>Blepharoplasty - adverse effects</topic><topic>Blepharoplasty - instrumentation</topic><topic>carbon dioxide laser</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Colorado microdissection needle</topic><topic>Electrocoagulation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Electrocoagulation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laser Therapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Laser Therapy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Lasers, Gas - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Microdissection - instrumentation</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rokhsar, Cameron K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciocon, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Detweiler, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Lasers in surgery and medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rokhsar, Cameron K.</au><au>Ciocon, David H.</au><au>Detweiler, Susan</au><au>Fitzpatrick, Richard E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty</atitle><jtitle>Lasers in surgery and medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Lasers Surg. Med</addtitle><date>2008-02</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>159</spage><epage>164</epage><pages>159-164</pages><issn>0196-8092</issn><eissn>1096-9101</eissn><abstract>Background/Objective Various techniques for blepharoplasty have been described, including those performed with the assistance of the short pulse carbon dioxide laser and those performed with the assistance of the Colorado microdissection needle attached to an electrocautery unit. Although the superiority of the carbon dioxide laser to cold steel has been demonstrated for the performance of eyelid blepharoplasty, no studies have ever compared the carbon dioxide laser to the Colorado needle. Study Design/Materials and Methods This is a paired comparison study in which 12 healthy patients underwent bilateral blepharoplasty of their upper and/or lower eyelids by a single surgeon. For each patient, a short pulse carbon dioxide laser was used on one side, and a Colorado needle attached to an electrocautery unit was used on the other. Intraoperative times were recorded. At five post‐operative visits patients were evaluated for post‐operative healing parameters including edema, erythema, scar width, and bruising. Finally, excised tissue was assessed histologically for thermal damage. Results Comparing both techniques, no difference in patient or physician‐measured parameters of healing were noted up to 1 month post‐operatively. However, Colorado needle assisted blepharoplasty resulted in slightly shorter intraoperative times. It also resulted in less thermal damage on a histologic level, although these differences were not clinically significant. Conclusions For the performance of blepharoplasty, the Colorado needle tip with electrocautery offers benefits equivalent to those of the short pulsed CO2 laser but has the advantage of shorter intraoperative times and lower cost. Lesers Surg. Med. 40:159–164, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>18306246</pmid><doi>10.1002/lsm.20604</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0196-8092
ispartof Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2008-02, Vol.40 (2), p.159-164
issn 0196-8092
1096-9101
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70356157
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects blepharoplasty
Blepharoplasty - adverse effects
Blepharoplasty - instrumentation
carbon dioxide laser
Cohort Studies
Colorado microdissection needle
Electrocoagulation - adverse effects
Electrocoagulation - instrumentation
Female
Humans
Laser Therapy - adverse effects
Laser Therapy - instrumentation
Lasers, Gas - therapeutic use
Male
Microdissection - instrumentation
Middle Aged
Needles
Treatment Outcome
title The short pulse carbon dioxide laser versus the colorado needle tip with electrocautery for upper and lower eyelid blepharoplasty
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T20%3A23%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20short%20pulse%20carbon%20dioxide%20laser%20versus%20the%20colorado%20needle%20tip%20with%20electrocautery%20for%20upper%20and%20lower%20eyelid%20blepharoplasty&rft.jtitle=Lasers%20in%20surgery%20and%20medicine&rft.au=Rokhsar,%20Cameron%20K.&rft.date=2008-02&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=164&rft.pages=159-164&rft.issn=0196-8092&rft.eissn=1096-9101&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lsm.20604&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70356157%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3964-c6f31c7a37537a8a7c2c6494ed5c4fcc1f100d7850140659ca3a9f6f61a0cbf43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70356157&rft_id=info:pmid/18306246&rfr_iscdi=true