摘要
目的比较染料窄谱脉冲光（Dye—PL）500—600nm波长与宽谱强脉冲光（IPL）560—1200nm波长治疗痤疮后红斑的临床疗效。方法将80例痤疮后红斑患者随机分为Dye-PL和宽谱强脉冲光（IPL）两组。每组各40例，两组均治疗3次，治疗间隔时间1个月。结果首次治疗后，Dye-PL组与IPL组有效率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。2次治疗后，两组有效率比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。3次治疗后，两组痊愈率及有效率比较差异均有统计学意义（P均〈0．01）。结论Dye．PL和IPL对痤疮后红斑均有明显临床疗效，Dye—PL疗效优于IPL，前者治疗能量密度明显低于后者。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of dye pulse light in narrow spectrum （ Dye-PL 500 - 600nm） versus intensive pulse hght （ IPL 560 - 1 200nm） in the treatment of ache-induced erythema. Methods Eighty of patients with acne-induced erythema were equally divided into two groups. The first group was treated by Dye-PL,while the second group was treated by IPL. Two groups were treated three times at one month interval. Results There was no significant difference in the effective rate in two groups （P 〉 0.05） after the first treatment. There was significant difference in the effective rate （P 〈 0. 01 ） in two groups after the second treatment. There was significant difference in the effective rate and curative rate （ P 〈 0.01 ） in two groups after the third treatment. Conclusion Two methods are effective in treatment with ache-induced erythema. The effectiveness of Dye-PL is better than IPL.
出处
《中国皮肤性病学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2015年第9期910-912,共3页
The Chinese Journal of Dermatovenereology
基金
国家自然科学基金重点项目(51228602)
