Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective chart review for the laser treatment of eyeliner and eyebrow tattoos and a discussion of treatment experiences can better inform physicians. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective chart review was performed over five years with patients who had eyeliner and/or eyebrow tattoos and had laser removal. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, 76 patients were treated. Mean age was 47 years, and 98.7 percent were women. Fitzpatrick Skin Types I-VI were represented. Of all cases, 55.3 percent included eyebrows, 43.4 percent eyelids, and 1.3 percent both. There was a mean of 2.8 treatments. Common colors included black (73.7%), black/red (7.9%), black/orange (5.3%), black/yellow (3.9%), and red (3.9%). Most cases were treated with 755nm picosecond laser or high peak-powered 532nm/1064nm picosecond laser. After initial treatment, 26.3 percent of cases involved unmasking of colors, such as red, orange, yellow, green, and blue, which were not previously visualized. There were no documented adverse events related to scarring, hypotrichosis, necrosis, and burns. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Laser removal of eyeliner and eyebrow tattoos can be safe and effective. There should be consideration for eye and hair protection, pain control, and pigment unmasking.

OBJECTIVE:Port wine birthmarks (PWBs) are vascular malformations affecting 0.3%-0.5% of newborns with the tendency to persist into adulthood without adequate treatment of the heterogenous ectatic vessels. This study compares treatment outcomes and parameters of the prior generation pulsed dye laser (PPDL) and the larger spot novel generation pulsed dye laser (NPDL) to establish whether a larger spot size laser provides greater clearance with fewer treatments. METHODS:One hundred and sixty patients were treated with either the PPDL (80 patients) and NPDL (80 patients) with retrospective review of age, body site, laser treatment parameters, number of treatments, and improvement following laser therapy. RESULTS:with pulse durations of 0.45-6 ms. Fifty percent improvement was seen with 8.8 PPDL treatments compared to 4.3 NPDL treatments (p ≤ 0.01) with no significant difference in overall mean improvement between both devices at the chosen parameters. Multiple regression analysis showed that device type, not age or lesion location, was the only statistically significant independent variable to affect the endpoint of at least 50% improvement of the lesion. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the larger spot NPDL is associated with achieving 50% improvement with fewer treatments.

BACKGROUND:Perioral rhytides can be treated with laser and energy-based devices. More recently, a novel fractional thermomechanical skin rejuvenation system was developed to cause controlled thermal injury through direct heat transfer. OBJECTIVE:A prospective clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of a thermomechanical fractional injury device (Tixel 2, Novoxel, Netanya, Israel) for perioral rhytides. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Subjects with moderate-to-severe perioral rhytides were enrolled and underwent 4 monthly treatments. RESULTS:Twenty-three subjects were enrolled and completed all study visits. Mean age was 62.5 years, and 100.0% were women. Fitzpatrick Skin Types I-IV were included. For Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Classification System (FWCS), mean baseline score was 6.9. Per investigator, there was a mean 1.9-grade improvement in FWCS at 3-month follow-up ( p < .0001). At 3-month follow-up, 8.7% (n = 2) of subjects had a 3-grade improvement, 69.6% (n = 16) had a 2-grade improvement, and 21.7% (n = 5) had a 1-grade improvement. For physician Global Aesthetics Improvement Scale at 3-month follow-up, 69.6% (n = 16) had 76% to 100% improvement, 13.0% (n = 3) had 51% to 75% improvement, and 17.4% (n = 4) had 26% to 50% improvement. There were no severe adverse events, and subjects experienced minimal pain. CONCLUSION:A novel device using thermomechanical fractional injury was demonstrated to be safe and effective in the treatment of perioral rhytides.

Growing a cosmetic dermatology practice is an often complex and arduous task. Many different factors must be considered in order to build and maintain a successful clinical practice. Devices and injectables are both integral components to operating a comprehensive cosmetic dermatology practice. Aesthetic physicians seeking to grow their cosmetic practice in these areas must be aware of the numerous considerations-both more obvious and more subtle-that play a role in the decision-making process, including the local market, patient demand, clinic space, and physician experience and training. This contribution is focused on the factors that should be carefully considered when looking to grow a cosmetic dermatology practice with devices and injectables.