红光与日光光动力治疗面部寻常痤疮的疗效和安全性分析  

Efficacy and safety of red light and daylight photodynamic therapy in treatment of facial acne vulgaris

作　　者：朱爽爽 彭莎 李利梅 李雨雨 叶西西 张云露 凌巧 Zhu Shuangshuang;Peng Sha;Li Limei;Li Yuyu;Ye Xixi;Zhang Yunlu;Ling Qiao(Department of Dermatology,Chongqing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Chongqing 40001l,China)

机构地区：[1]重庆市中医院皮肤科,重庆400011

出　　处：《中华医学美学美容杂志》2024年第5期488-493,共6页Chinese Journal of Medical Aesthetics and Cosmetology

摘　　要：目的比较红光和日光光动力治疗面部寻常痤疮的疗效和安全性。方法2019年3—11月,重庆市中医院皮肤科接受5-氨基酮戊酸光动力疗法治疗的面部寻常痤疮患者52例,男34例、女18例,年龄18~35岁,平均23.2岁。将5%浓度5-氨基酮戊酸涂于全面部,患者右侧面部红光照射20 min,左侧面部日光照射2 h。每周照射1次,治疗4次后比较两侧面部痤疮缓解情况、不良反应、患者满意度。结果与治疗前相比,入选患者两侧面部的炎性和非炎性病变的数量均减少,两侧皮损清除率差异无统计学意义[53.7%(28/52)比59.1%(31/52),χ^(2)=0.89,P>0.05]。红光侧总有效率88.5%(46/52),日光侧82.7%(43/52),二者比较差异无统计学意义(χ^(2)=0.38,P>0.05)。从不良反应来看,轻度红斑是常见的不良反应,且日光侧少于红光侧[34.6%(18/52)比19.2%(10/52),χ^(2)=5.98,P<0.05]。两组治疗期间疼痛评分,与红光侧相比,日光侧治疗期间疼痛较轻[(7.6±2.3)比(4.1±1.3)分,t=13.10,P<0.001]。患者对日光侧的总体满意49例,占94.2%,红光侧满意37例,占71.2%,日光侧高于红光侧,差异有统计学意义(χ^(2)=9.60,P<0.05)。结论日光光动力治疗寻常痤疮与红光光动力疗效相当,但是日光光动力产生不良反应较少,患者满意度更高。ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of red light and daylight photodynamic therapy in the treatment of facial common acne.MethodsFrom March 2019 to November 2019,52 patients with facial common acne who received 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy in the Department of Dermatology,Chongqing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were enrolled,including 34 males and 18 females,aged 18-35 years,with an average age of 23.2 years.A 5%concentration of 5-aminolevulinic acid was applied to the entire face,with the right side of the face being exposed to red light for 20 minutes and the left side to daylight for 2 hours.The treatment was administered once a week for a total of 4 sessions.After the treatment,the acne remission,adverse reactions,and patient satisfaction on both sides of the face were compared.ResultsCompared with before treatment,the number of inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions on both sides of the face in the enrolled patients decreased,and there was no significant difference in the clearance rate of skin lesions between the two sides[53.7%(28/52)vs 59.1%(31/52),χ^(2)=0.89,P>0.05].The overall effective rate on the red light side was 88.5%(46/52),and 82.7%(43/52)on the daylight side,with no significant difference between the two(χ^(2)=0.38,P>0.05).In terms of adverse reactions,mild erythema was common,and it was less on the daylight side than on the red light side[34.6%(18/52)vs 19.2%(10/52),χ^(2)=5.98,P<0.05].During the treatment period,the pain score on the daylight side decreased compared to the red light side[(7.6±2.3)vs(4.1±1.3),t=13.10,P<0.001].Overall satisfaction with the daylight side was reported in 49 cases(94.2%),and with the red light side in 37 cases(71.2%),with the daylight side being higher than the red light side,and the difference was statistically significant(χ^(2)=9.60,P<0.05).ConclusionDaylight photodynamic therapy is as effective as red light photodynamic therapy for common acne,but it produces fewer adverse reactions and higher patient satisfaction.

关 键 词：寻常痤疮 光动力疗法 治疗结果 日光光动力 红光光动力 

分 类 号：R758.733[医药卫生—皮肤病学与性病学]