The Efficacy of Pulsed Dye Laser Pretreated With or Without Local Anesthetic on Patients Presenting With Erythema of Face, Neck, Chest, and Extremities.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Erythema is one of the most common cosmetic concerns and usually responds well to pulsed dye laser (PDL) treatment. As this laser can cause significant discomfort, topical anesthesia is sometimes offered. However, it is still uncertain whether topical anesthetics can affect the outcome of the laser therapy. We performed a retrospective single site study to compare the efficacy of PDL for the treatment of erythema in patients with and without pretreatment with topical anesthetic. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed and patients who presented with erythema of face, neck, chest, and extremities pretreated with topical anesthesia (23% lidocaine/7% tetracaine ointment or 7% lidocaine/7% tetracaine ointment) undergoing PDL were reviewed and compared with another group without anesthesia. Two blinded dermatologists evaluated the postlaser procedure photographs and gave an assessment compared with baseline. RESULTS: A total of 69 patient charts were reviewed. The erythema resulted from various skin conditions including telangiectasia, cherry angioma, striae, and rosacea. The mean improvement was 2.2581 in the anesthesia group and 2.2632 in the nonanesthesia group. There was no significant difference between both groups as confirmed by a noninferiority test. CONCLUSIONS: Topical anesthesia with lidocaine and tetracaine ointment do not interfere with the efficacy of the PDL. Since pain management is essential for any cosmetic procedure, the application of a local anesthetic will enhance patient comfort and satisfaction during treatment with PDL. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Retention Rates Among Patients Undergoing Multimodal Facial Rejuvenation Treatment Versus a Single Monotherapy in Cosmetic Dermatology Practices.

BACKGROUND: Facial aging is a multifactorial process. Accordingly, expert opinion has largely been unanimous in that multimodal treatment targeting various aspects of the aging face provides superior results. However, there is a lack of studies exploring patient response. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient retention between triple multimodal facial rejuvenation treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy) and monotherapy (neuromodulator alone). METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter (the United States, Canada, and Germany) study was performed. Cases were retrieved from July 2015 to June 2016. The study compared patients who had undergone monotherapy (neuromodulator), combined multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy on the same day), and sequential multimodal treatment (neuromodulator, filler, and energy-based therapy over a 1-year period). Retention rates were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients were included: monotherapy (300), sequential multimodal treatment (93), and combined multimodal treatment (116). Patient retention was significantly higher in the combined multimodal treatment group compared with the monotherapy and sequential multimodal treatment groups (p < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar trends at all sites. CONCLUSION: Based on retention rates, patients are more likely to return to the clinic when multiple treatment modalities are used during 1 encounter. These data further solidify the importance of multimodal therapy for both the provider and the patient.