Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) for the treatment of vascular and pigmented lesions

BACKGROUND

IPL devices emit a wide range of wavelengths that can be absorbed by different chromophores in the skin. Selective destruction of a specific chromophore with minimal side effects is controlled by wavelength, pulse duration, and fluence.

AIM

This study aims to evaluate the treatment of vascular and pigmented lesions using narrow-band Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) with Advanced Fluorescence Technology (AFT), which offers more efficient energy usage per pulse to increase safety, and improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from 100 patients treated with narrow-band IPL for vascular and pigmented lesions. Efficacy was measured by the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and Patient Satisfaction Scale (0-10). Safety was assessed by evaluating pain levels and adverse events.

RESULTS

Mean GAIS scores were 8.02 ± 0.84 for vascular and 8.14 ± 0.9 for pigmented lesions with no significant difference between groups (p=0.49, α=0.05). Patient satisfaction correlated with GAIS scores (correlation coefficient 0.8). No pain was reported and two patients experienced temporary and transient side effects.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the advanced IPL treatments provided favorable outcomes for vascular and pigmented lesions.

Medical Aesthetics - Current Trends and a Review of Its Applications

Medical aesthetics is the use of a procedure or product for a therapeutic indication which is conventionally used for aesthetics. Several medical conditions are now being treated with products, procedures or equipment that are conventionally used for aesthetic indications. This has widened the scope of treatment modalities available for dermatologists to treat various indications that fall outside the purview of aesthetic dermatology. The authors present aesthetic treatment modalities and procedures which can be used for medical aesthetics, their present-day status and usefulness in field of therapeutics with a review of published literature from "Medline" (via "PubMed"), "Cochrane," the Virtual Health Library, and Google Scholar.

MINI-INVASIVE TREATMENT METHODS OF SPIDER VEINS: SCLEROTHERAPY AND RADIOFREQUENCY THERMOCOAGULATION

OBJECTIVE

The aim: This study was conducted to compare the results of spider vein: sclerotherapy or radiofrequency thermocoagulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The study included 52 patients with spider veins, who were randomized into two treatment groups: sclerotherapy or radiofrequency thermocoagulation. Treatment outcomes were assessed using: a self-assessed questionnaire, CIVIQ 20 questionnaire, computer evaluation of images, registration relapses complications, negative manifestations, and intensity of the pain syndrome.

RESULTS

Results: Both methods showed a statistically significant difference in the quality of life indicators before and one month after treatment (p<0.001 for both groups). Radiofrequency thermocoagulation showed a greater impact on the patient's quality of life (p = 0.003). The average length of spider veins in the treatment area decreased the most with radiofrequency thermocoagulation (by 92.1%), slightly less after sclerotherapy (by 73.4%) (p < 0,01).

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Both treatments have shown good results for spider veins and were reasonably safe with few negative manifestations. Radiofrequency coagulation better eliminates small veins, less than 0.3 mm.

[High-intensity laser therapy in clinical medicine: scientometric analysis of evidence of effectiveness]

INTRODUCTION

High-intensity laser technologies are widely used in modern restorative medicine, and indications for their use are expanding annually. These technologies are effective, potentially safe methods of treating many diseases. with pronounced therapeutic effects.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

Analysis of scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of high-intensity laser therapy in patients with various diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive scientometric analysis of evidence-based studies of the effectiveness and safety of high-intensity laser therapy methods was carried out according to electronic databases (Google scholar, PEDro, PubMed, Cochrane DATABASE) for the period from 2006 to 2021.

RESULTS

High-intensity laser therapy has a wide range of significantly pronounced therapeutic effects. and it is an effective method of treating patients with various diseases. Various technologies and methods of its application are widely used in various fields of clinical medicine. Individually developed therapy protocols are needed, with optimal exposure parameters for each patient, intervals between procedures.

CONCLUSION

It is advisable to develop more reliable and standard evaluation criteria, regular generalization and analysis of existing evidence, careful planning and implementation of further large-scale randomized controlled trials to study the effects of high-intensity laser radiation both as a single effect and as part of combinations with other treatment methods. The effectiveness of combination therapy requires further analysis in the course of conducting new benign clinical trials.

Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

BACKGROUND

Telangiectasias (spider veins) and reticular veins on the lower limbs are very common, increase with age, and have been found in 41% of women. The cause is unknown and the patients may be asymptomatic or can report pain, burning or itching. Treatments include sclerotherapy, laser, intense pulsed light, microphlebectomy and thermoablation, but none is established as preferable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy treatments for telangiectasias and reticular veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 March 2021. We undertook additional searches in LILACS and IBECS databases, reference checking, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared treatment methods such as sclerotherapy, laser therapy, intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation, and microphlebectomy for telangiectasias and reticular veins in the lower limb. We included studies that compared individual treatment methods against placebo, or that compared different sclerosing agents, foam or laser treatment, or that used a combination of treatment methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risks of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias, adverse events (including hyperpigmentation, matting), pain, recurrence, time to resolution, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 3632 participants from 35 RCTs. Studies compared a variety of sclerosing agents, laser treatment and compression. No studies investigated intensive pulsed light, thermocoagulation or microphlebectomy. None of the included studies assessed recurrence or time to resolution. Overall the risk of bias of the included studies was moderate. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate or low because of clinical heterogeneity and imprecision due to the wide confidence intervals (CIs) and few participants for each comparison. Any sclerosing agent versus placebo There was moderate-certainty evidence that sclerosing agents showed more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias compared to placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) 3.08, 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48; 4 studies, 613 participants/procedures), and more frequent adverse events: hyperpigmentation (risk ratio (RR) 11.88, 95% CI 4.54 to 31.09; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures); matting (RR 4.06, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.84; 3 studies, 528 participants/procedures). There may be more pain experienced in the sclerosing-agents group compared to placebo (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; 1 study, 40 participants; low-certainty evidence). Polidocanol versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.14; 7 studies, 852 participants/procedures), hyperpigmentation (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 6 studies, 819 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; 7 studies, 859 participants/procedures), but there were fewer cases of pain (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.08; 5 studies, 480 participants/procedures) in the polidocanol group. All moderate-certainty evidence. Sodium tetradecyl sulphate (STS) versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11; 4 studies, 473 participants/procedures). There was more hyperpigmentation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.64; 4 studies, 478 participants/procedures), matting (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.85; 2 studies, 323 participants/procedures) and probably more pain (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.25; 4 studies, 409 participants/procedures). All moderate-certainty evidence. Foam versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures); hyperpigmentation (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 10.23; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures) or pain (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.24; 1 study, 147 participants/procedures). There may be more matting using foam (RR 6.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 35.98; 2 studies, 187 participants/procedures). All low-certainty evidence. Laser versus any sclerosing agent There was no clear difference in resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.07; 5 studies, 593 participants/procedures), or matting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.19; 2 studies, 162 participants/procedures), and maybe less hyperpigmentation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; 4 studies, 262 participants/procedures) in the laser group. All moderate-certainty evidence. High heterogeneity of the studies reporting on pain prevented pooling, and results were inconsistent (low-certainty evidence). Laser plus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) versus sclerotherapy (polidocanol) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be more resolution or improvement (or both) of telangiectasias in the combined group (SMD 5.68, 95% CI 5.14 to 6.23; 2 studies, 710 participants), and no clear difference in hyperpigmentation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.99; 2 studies, 656 participants) or matting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.28; 2 studies, 656 participants). There may be more pain in the combined group (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.55; 1 study, 596 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Small numbers of studies and participants in each comparison limited our confidence in the evidence. Sclerosing agents were more effective than placebo for resolution or improvement of telangiectasias but also caused more adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in more pain (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a benefit in resolution or improvement for any sclerosant compared to another or to laser. There may be more resolution or improvement of telangiectasias in the combined laser and polidocanol group compared to polidocanol alone (low-certainty evidence). There may be differences between treatments in adverse events and pain. Compared to other sclerosing agents polidocanol probably causes less pain; STS resulted in more hyperpigmentation, matting and probably pain; foam may cause more matting (low-certainty evidence); laser treatment may result in less hyperpigmentation (moderate-certainty evidence). Further well-designed studies are required to provide evidence for other available treatments and important outcomes (such as recurrence, time to resolution and delayed adverse events); and to improve our confidence in the identified comparisons.