532 nm KTP激光治疗鲜红斑痣的自身对照研究

中国麻风皮肤病杂志 ›› 2017, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 12-17.

532 nm KTP激光治疗鲜红斑痣的自身对照研究

杨千里1 郑文渊2 卢忠1

1复旦大学附属华山医院皮肤科，上海，200040 2温岭市第四人民医院，浙江温岭，317511

出版日期:2017-01-15 发布日期:2018-12-10
通讯作者: 卢忠，E-mail: luzhong20100806@qq.com

Efficacy and safety of 532 nm KTP laser in the treatment of port-wine stains

YANG Qianli1, ZHENG Wenyuan2, LU Zhong1

1. Department of Dermatology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China; 2. The Fourth People's Hospital of Wenling, Zhejiang 317511, China

Online:2017-01-15 Published:2018-12-10
Contact: LU Zhong, E-mail: luzhong20100806@qq.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：比较532 nm KTP激光与脉冲染料激光(PDL)对鲜红斑痣的疗效及安全性。方法：将18例鲜红斑痣患者的自身皮损随机分成KTP激光治疗区及PDL治疗区，分别予以532 nm KTP激光及595 nm PDL治疗，每2～3个月治疗一次,共2～4次。每次治疗前、后即刻及治疗后2～3个月对患者激光治疗后的皮损进行疗效及安全性评价。结果：532 nm KTP激光治疗组及595 nm PDL治疗组治疗后疗效均无显著差异。在一些既往曾接受PDL治疗疗效不佳的患者，经532 nm KTP激光治疗后，皮损取得一定改善。532 nm KTP激光治疗组在治疗时疼痛程度及治疗后紫癜程度均显著低于595 nmPDL治疗组。两组均有1例色素沉着发生。结论：532 nm KTP激光治疗鲜红斑痣的疗效较好，不良反应少，安全性好，可以作为鲜红斑痣治疗的另一方案。

关键词: 鲜红斑痣, 532 nm KTP激光, 脉冲染料激光, 疗效, 不良反应

Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse reactions of 532 nm KTP laser and 595 nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of port wine stain. Methods: The lesions of 18 patients were divided into two areas. One area was treated with 532 nm KTP laser and another area was treated with 595 nm pulsed dye laser, once every 2~3 months for 2~4 times. The safety and efficacy were evaluated after the treatment and in 2-3 months after the treatment. Results: There was no significant difference in the cure rate between 532 nm KTP laser and 595 nm pulsed dye laser. Some patients who were resistant to pulsed dye laser treatment were also sensitive to the treatment with 532 nm KTP laser. There were less pain and less purpura in the group of 532 nm KTP laser. Only one patient in each group developed hyperpigmentation. Conclusion: 532 nm KTP laser has similar efficacy to 595 nm pulsed dye laser and relatively less adverse reactions. It can be used as an alternative treatment of port wine stain.

Key words: port-wine stains, 532 nm KTP laser, pulsed-dye laser, efficacy, adverse reaction

杨千里, 郑文渊, 卢忠. 532 nm KTP激光治疗鲜红斑痣的自身对照研究[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2017, 33(1): 12-17.

YANG Qianli, ZHENG Wenyuan, LU Zhong. Efficacy and safety of 532 nm KTP laser in the treatment of port-wine stains[J]. China Journal of Leprosy and Skin Diseases, 2017, 33(1): 12-17.

[1]	夏秀娟, 梁津宁, 金外淑, 陈先进, 邵娟, 周素荣, 冯西恩, 尹爱群. 报告比值比法对化妆品不良反应信号的挖掘研究[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2022, 38(2): 89-92.
[2]	刘韵祎, 姜沛彧, 李敏, 陶梦, 刘乙萱, 张嘉文, 南宇晴, 许阳. 免疫检测点抑制剂皮肤相关不良反应[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2022, 38(2): 135-138.
[3]	刘杰雄, 黄煜坤, 刘璐, 熊霞, 邓永琼. 预测双波长脉冲染料激光治疗鲜红斑痣效果的无创模型研究[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2022, 38(1): 29-33.
[4]	石艾秀, 曹双林. 分子靶向抗肿瘤药物皮肤不良反应研究进展[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2021, 37(9): 605-609.
[5]	刘娜, 滕艳, 丁晓霞, 樊莎莎, 汤怡, 陆威, 樊一斌, 潘卫利, 陶小华. 单针射频治疗中度痤疮疗效评价[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2021, 37(6): 380-383.
[6]	周兴丽, 詹同英, 李薇. 硫唑嘌呤在皮肤科的应用[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2021, 37(11): 739-743.
[7]	何春霞, 斯晓燕, 渠涛, 张力. 免疫检查点抑制剂帕博利珠单抗诱发银屑病一例并文献复习[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2021, 37(1): 3-7.
[8]	孙迎, 胡洁, 宋宁, 何易珍, 袁伟. 麻风化疗药物研究进展[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(7): 434-439.
[9]	赵扬, 孙晓岩, 白彦平. 龙珠软膏联合丁酸氢化可的松乳膏治疗阴囊湿疹的疗效观察[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(6): 372-373.
[10]	彭曦, 熊维, 黄海艳, 邹彦芬, 姜彬, 刘小明, 简杏玲, 于波. 脉冲染料激光联合二氧化碳点阵激光对兔耳增生性瘢痕的影响[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(5): 262-266.
[11]	王妍妍, 李志量, 沙作红. 利妥昔单抗治疗寻常型天疱疮二例临床护理[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(2): 114-116.
[12]	杨宝琦, 张朝霞, 陈明飞, 王娜, 颜潇潇, 杨青, 潘付堂, 王广进, 杜东红, 吴梅, 施仲香, 张福仁. 利妥昔单抗治疗天疱疮六例并文献复习[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(12): 718-721.
[13]	董瑛, 葛宏松, 周洁, 曹婷婷, 冉颖, 张成, 吴健平. 595 nm脉冲染料激光治疗婴幼儿面部和四肢浅表血管瘤的疗效比较[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2020, 36(10): 577-580.
[14]	王美玲, 刘华绪. 鲜红斑痣发病及治疗相关机制研究进展[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2019, 35(9): 564-567.
[15]	刘莲, 张自晖, 郝丹, 梅蓉, 李二龙, 孙本森, 蒋献. 鲜红斑痣的发病机制研究进展[J]. 中国麻风皮肤病杂志, 2019, 35(4): 253-256.