Comparison of Patients' Assessments on Overall Facial Rejuvenation and Procedural Pain Seen with a Fluorescent Pulsed-Light Source and Those Seen with a Traditional Intense Pulsed-Light Source

Introduction: Intense pulsed-light (IPL) treatments are effective alternatives to ablative procedures for improving the appearance of photodamaged skin. Currently, there are multiple IPL sources to modulate photoaged skin, but there are no studies comparing the efficacy of or pain associated with 2 different PL sources. Therefore, we chose to compare patients' assessments of overall cutaneous rejuvenation and pain associated with a fluorescent PL source and a traditional IPL source. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 24 patients who were treated with both a fluorescent PL source and a traditional IPL source. These patients completed questionnaire surveys that assessed (by a graded scale) pain during the procedure and overall satisfaction with each IPL source. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data as well as McNemar's test were used to compare overall facial rejuvenation and procedural pain between the 2 light sources. Results: For both light sources, most patients reported “fair” or better improvement in skin appearance. The patients did not report a significant difference in overall skin improvement between the treatments with each light source. In addition, most patients did not report having pain during recovery after procedures by either light source. However, patients did report significantly less pain during treatments with the fluorescent device compared with the traditional IPL source. Discussion: IPL sources provide safe and effective nonablative treatment for facial photorejuvenation. Patients are equally satisfied with the effects seen with both traditional and fluorescent PL source, but reported less pain with the fluorescent PL procedure during treatments.