4.0 Article

Clinical effects of non-ablative and ablative fractional lasers on various hair disorders: a case series of 17 patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC AND LASER THERAPY
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 74-79

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/14764172.2013.764436

关键词

abscedens et suffodiens; carbon dioxide; congenital hypotrichosis; erbium-glass; fractional laser; ophiasis; perifolliculitis; scar; scleroderma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Both ablative and non-ablative fractional lasers have been applied to various uncommon hair disorders. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the clinical effects of fractional laser therapy on the course of primary follicular and perifollicular pathologies and subsequent hair regrowth. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of 17 patients with uncommon hair disorders - including ophiasis, autosomal recessive woolly hair/hypotrichosis, various secondary cicatricial alopecias, pubic hypotrichosis, frontal fibrosing alopecia, and perifolliculitis abscedens et suffodiens was conducted. All patients had been treated with non-ablative and/or ablative fractional laser therapies. Results: The mean clinical improvement score in these 17 patients was 2.2, while the mean patient satisfaction score was 2.5. Of the 17 subjects, 12 (70.6%) demonstrated a clinical response to non-ablative and/or ablative fractional laser treatments, including individuals with ophiasis, autosomal recessive woolly hair/hypotrichosis, secondary cicatricial alopecia (scleroderma and pressure-induced alopecia), frontal fibrosing alopecia, and perifolliculitis abscedens et suffodiens. Conversely, patients with long-standing ophiasis, surgical scar-induced secondary cicatricial alopecia, and pubic hypotrichosis did not respond to fractional laser therapy. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the use of non-ablative and/or ablative fractional lasers promoted hair growth in certain cases of uncommon hair disorders without any remarkable side effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据