A Split‐Face Comparison of Two Ablative Fractional Carbon Dioxide Lasers for the Treatment of Photodamaged Facial Skin

• Published in: Dermatologic surgery 2011-06, Vol.37 (6), p.784-790
• Main Authors: CIOCON, DAVID H., ENGELMAN, DENDY E., HUSSAIN, MUSSARRAT, GOLDBERG, DAVID J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermatologic Surgical Procedures; Dermatology; Double-Blind Method; Face - surgery; Female; Humans; Injuries of the skin. Diseases of the skin due to physical agents; Lasers, Gas - adverse effects; Lasers, Gas - therapeutic use; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Rejuvenation; Skin Aging; Skin involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous. General aspects; Skin plastic surgery; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1076-0512; 1524-4725
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.01964..x

OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and efficacy of two fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser devices for the treatment of photodamaged facial skin. METHODS Eight healthy subjects underwent full‐face resurfacing for photodamaged skin with two fractionated CO2 laser devices using manufacturer‐recommended settings for facial rejuvenation. For each subject, one device with a rolling handpiece was used on one side and a second device with a stamping handpiece was used on the other. Patients were evaluated 3 months postoperatively and photographed. A blinded physician investigator assessed the photographs and rated each side for improvement in four categories (wrinkles, pigmentation, skin laxity, and overall appearance). Patient ratings for overall improvement for each side were also recorded. RESULTS All patients had improved on the basis of photographic and clinical assessments at 3 months. No significant differences in patient ratings of overall improvement and physician‐measured parameters of clinical improvement were found, although intraoperative times and pain ratings were greater with the laser with the stamping handpiece. No complications were experienced with either device. CONCLUSIONS Both fractionated CO2 resurfacing devices used in the study were safe and effective for the treatment of photodamaged facial skin, but the modality using a stamping handpiece was associated with longer operative times and greater intraoperative pain. The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters.