Skip to content

Comparison of Outcome Parameters in Laser Rhytide Treatment

Comparison of Clinical Outcome Parameters, the Patient Benefit Index (PBI) and Patient Satisfaction After Ablative Fractional Laser Treatment of Peri-orbital Rhytides

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00994474
Enrollment
28
Registered
2009-10-14
Start date
2008-08-31
Completion date
2009-03-31
Last updated
2009-10-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Skin Aging

Keywords

Laser surgery, Profilometry, Fitzpatrick wrinkle score, Patient Benefit Index, Patient satisfaction

Brief summary

We previously published a comparative split-face study which has shown a significant, albeit moderate, effect of ablative fractional laser treatment. While indicating that a single session with fractional ablative lasers can be effective in the treatment of peri-orbital wrinkles, the trial also revealed substantial disagreement between the different end points (profilometry, Fitzpatrick wrinkle score, patient satisfaction). Since the PBI is a patient-related index it could not be included in the aforementioned split-face trial; the present study therefore attempts to further elucidate the patient-related benefit of a single fractional ablative laser treatment session as well as carefully analyse the respective correlations between the outcome parameters employed.

Interventions

With the CO2 laser (Fraxel Re:pair, Solta Medical Inc., Hayward, CA), patients received two passes at 15 mJ (1st pass) and 20 mJ (2nd pass), respectively, with a total density of 20 %. We employed 'pin-point bleeding' and serosanguinous exudate as a clinical end point. The pulse duration was 10 msec.

PROCEDUREFractional Er:YAG laser treatment

The Er:YAG laser (MCL 30 Dermablate, Asclepion Laser Technologies GmbH, Jena, Germany) was used in 4 passes with a total fluence of 60 J/cm² and pulse stacking (6 stacked pulses); the pulse duration was 400 μsec.

Sponsors

Laserklinik Karlsruhe
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* mild to moderate peri-orbital rhytides ('crow's feet') at rest (Class II according to Fitzpatrick)

Exclusion criteria

* unrealistic expectations * inability to meet follow-up criteria * Fitzpatrick skin phototype \>III * coagulation disorders or anti-coagulant treatment * allergy to lidocaine or tetracaine * oral isotretinoin within the last 6 months * any active skin disease within the treatment areas (e.g., psoriasis, cancer, or autoimmune disease) * synthetic implants in the treatment area * facial cosmetic procedures affecting the treatment area within the last 6 months * photosensitizing medications (e.g., tetracycline, gold) * history of keloid formation * pregnancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Quantitative measurement of wrinkle depthBefore and after treatment (3 months)
Fitzpatrick wrinkle scoreBefore and after treatment (3 months)

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Patient benefit index (PBI)Before and after treatment (3 months)
Patient satisfaction1, 3, 6 days and 3 months after treatment

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026