Pre‐/postprocedure measures for laser/energy treatments: A survey. (16th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gold, Michael; Andriessen, Anneke; Cohen, Joel L.; Goldberg, David J.; Grover, Komel; Hu, Shasa; Mandy, Stephen H.; Vega, Janelle M. K.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cosmetic dermatology. Volume 19:Number 2(2020)
• Page Start: 289
• Page End: 295
• Publication Date: 2019-12-16
• Subjects: facial photodamage -- laser energy treatments -- pre‐postprocedure measures; Skin -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Lasers in surgery -- Periodicals; Skin -- Pathophysiology -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 616.5
• DOI: 10.1111/jocd.13259
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-2130

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Laser and energy‐based devices may be used for many cutaneous indications, including facial resurfacing, improving skin conditions, and reducing signs of photoaging. Currently, no consensus papers or guidelines exist concerning peri‐operative agents and specifically their use for laser skin resurfacing and their potential/possible role in prevention or treatment of side effects. Aim: To explore current practice using laser and energy devices, a survey was developed to identify the trends in pre‐ and postprocedural treatment measures. Methods: The survey was sent out digitally to 300 randomly selected US dermatologist and plastic surgeon physicians practicing medical esthetics using laser and other energy devices treatment for facial rejuvenation. The survey gathered information on demographics, types of devices used in the clinic and pre‐/postprocedural measures for facial laser, and other energy‐based devices treatment. Results: The survey was active from June 15, to July 15, 2018, and fifty‐eight dermatologists and plastic surgeons completed the survey (19.3% response rate, 58/300). The results showed inconsistency in skin preparation strategies and postprocedure wound care. The majority of survey participants (55/58 [96%]) reported prophylactic oral antiviral use pre‐ and post‐treatment; however, there was inconsistency about when to start and when to stop the use. A similar inconsistency existed in the recommended period of post‐treatment sun protection before and after treatment. Conclusion: The results of the survey confirmed the lack of consistency in the types and duration of pre‐ and postprocedural measures—emphasizing the need for evidence‐based recommendations to optimize outcomes, prevent infection, enhance comfort, and reduce downtime.