Split-face comparison of the picosecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser using a microlens array and the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser for treatment of photoaging facial wrinkles and pores in Asians.

Skin photoaging manifests deeper wrinkles and larger pore size. Various lasers have been tried for rejuvenation of photoaging skin, and the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser is one promising treatment option. New types of laser device are emerging, including devices operating with picosecond pulse duration combined with a microlens array, which are regarded as a new breakthrough for skin rejuvenation. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of the picosecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser using a microlens array compared with the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in a split-face design. We designed a split-faced, prospective study and enrolled 25 subjects with photoaging facial wrinkles and enlarged pores. Each facial area was randomly assigned to undergo treatment with either the picosecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser (Pico-arm) or the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser (Quasi-arm). We performed five laser sessions at 2-week intervals, and final results were assessed after 20 weeks after the initial laser session. We used a five-point global assessment scale, wrinkle and pore index derived from 3D camera analysis. We enrolled a total of 25 subjects (24 females and 1 male) with Fitzpatrick skin types III to IV and a mean age of 63.8 ± 5.7 years. After treatment, 54.2% of subjects in the Pico-arm reported at least moderate improvement in visible pores compared with 41.7% of the Quasi-arm (P = 0.001). A total of 12.5% of subjects in the Pico-arm showed moderate improvement in wrinkles versus 4.2% of the Quasi-arm (P = 0.125). There was a 41.3% reduction in the pore index in the Pico-arm compared to a 3.9% increase in the Quasi-arm (P = 0.048). There was a 16.4% reduction in the wrinkle index in the Pico-arm compared with a 0.5% reduction in the Quasi-arm (P = 0.01). Pain assessment score was higher in the Pico-arm than the Quasi-arm (3.65 ± 1.70 vs 1.28 ± 1.28, P = 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred during the study. Our findings suggest that the picosecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser with a microlens array is as effective as the quasi-long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser for treatment of photoaging wrinkles and pores.