Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events
1
Greenslopes Private Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4120, Australia
2
ANU Medical School, ANU College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2022, 14(12), 2738; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14122738
Submission received: 15 November 2022
/
Revised: 1 December 2022
/
Accepted: 5 December 2022
/
Published: 7 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Topical and Transdermal Drug Delivery)
Abstract
:Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is an increasingly studied and applied methodology for drug delivery. It has been used in a wide variety of clinical applications. Given the relatively low barrier to entry for clinicians as well as ongoing research in this area, the authors aimed to review outcomes relating to safety in laser-assisted drug delivery. A systematic review was conducted, with the databases PubMed, Medline and Embase searched in September 2022. Included articles were those that mentioned laser-assisted drug delivery in human subjects that also reported adverse effects or safety outcomes. There were no language-based exclusions. Conference abstracts and literature reviews were excluded. The results were then tabulated and categorized according to the application of LADD. In total, 501 articles were obtained. Following deduplication, screening, and full text review 70 articles of various study designs were included. Common findings were erythema, oedema, pain, and crusting following LADD. Several notably more severe adverse effects such as generalized urticaria, infection, scarring and dyspigmentation were noted. However, these events were varied depending on the clinical use of LADD. Relevant negatives were also noted whereby no studies reported life-threatening adverse effects. Limitations included limited details regarding the adverse effects within the full texts, lack of follow-up, and risk of bias. In conclusion, there were multiple adverse effects that clinicians should consider prior to carrying out LADD, where treatment goals and patient tolerability should be considered. Further evidence is needed to quantitatively determine these risks.
1. Introduction
Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is an increasingly utilized method to enhance the topical delivery of drugs. The primary concept of laser-assisted drug delivery is to facilitate increased topical absorption, commonly through skin [1]. The commonly used procedure is the administration of laser on the area to be treated followed by the topical application of the therapeutic substance. This may be limited to a single application or continued as a treatment regimen.
In recent years, laser-assisted drug delivery has received significant attention in its use for clinical and academic purposes, with increasing application to human subjects [2]. Some institutions have already utilized LADD over a period of years with published findings regarding their experiences [3,4].
Laser-assisted drug delivery has a relatively low barrier of entry as it utilizes equipment that practitioners may already own, particularly in its application for its use with skin. Given the wide variety of hypothesized indications for laser-assisted drug delivery, and its relative accessibility, it has the potential to have widespread adoption. As with any novel intervention, the aspect of safety should be emphasized.
A commonly cited source [5] states that its conceptualization was first established in 1987. Since then, Laser-assisted drug delivery has been studied for its various applications in oncology, analgesia, anaesthesia, and various medical indications.
The skin which forms the integumentary system possesses the properties of some impenetrability to molecules and drugs [6,7]. Laser assisted drug delivery has been regarded as a mechanism to overcome this, for increased drug delivery through the topical route [8].
The procedure of laser-assisted drug delivery itself is the utilization of various types of lasers on targeted skin [9], followed by the application of the topical substance desired to be administered. In vivo and in vitro studies [1,10,11] have shown that lasers are able to physically disrupt the skin barrier in order to increase the permeability of it to such substances.
Fractional lasers are commonly studied for use in conjunction with laser-assisted drug delivery. These lasers deliver laser beams in a fractionated method, resulting in numerous vertical channels termed as microthermal treatment zones. These would allow the passage of topical substances [12]. Additional laser parameters may be manipulated to achieve a desired effect, for instance the depth of penetration, in order to target delivery to the epidermis or dermis.
LADD for the skin has been utilized using a wide variety of topical preparations, ranging from cosmetic (facial rejuvenation, keloids), medical, and oncologic conditions [1,12]. Additionally, it has been used as a precursor to other form of therapy, notably photodynamic therapy, through its use prior to the application of a photosensitizing agent [13].
Its efficacy has been studied for certain use cases, with increasing evidence regarding its efficacy particularly in the management of keloids [14] and actinic keratoses [15]. However, further research in this area is still warranted. The systematic review by Truong et al. [14] yielded studies with varying treatment regimens involving LADD. They have suggested that further high-quality RCTs are needed. Additionally, there are still relatively few systematic reviews with meta-analyses regarding the efficacy of LADD. This is exacerbated by the heterogeneity in administration protocols for LADD.
Given that LADD has the potential to have widespread adoption, with a significantly large variety of use-cases as well as therapeutic agents, the authors believe that it would be useful to summarize published evidence regarding the safety of LADD. In particular, the clinical manifestation of harms associated with LADD.
2. Methods
A systematic search was conducted in September 2022, with databases PubMed, Medline and Embase searched. Inclusion criteria were articles mentioning laser-assisted drug delivery in human subjects with mention of adverse reactions or other data related to safety. A combination of search terms relating to laser-assisted drug delivery, safety, and adverse effects were used (Appendix A). There were no restrictions to language of the articles. Following deduplication, two authors screened the resultant title and abstracts, then excluded articles where deemed appropriate, following which the full texts of the remainder of the articles were assessed using the full texts. Conference abstracts and articles through which full texts were inaccessible due to copyright limitations were excluded. Literature review articles were excluded to avoid duplication of cases. The study including this protocol was registered in OSF Registry (Open Science Framework Registry) [16].
Data was extracted to identify the number of patients receiving laser-assisted drug delivery and reported adverse events or safety issues. Study characteristics such as study design and pharmaceutic agents used were also included. Relevant negative findings were also included.
3. Results
Studies were of various designs were captured within our search, ranging from single-patient case reports to larger trials; controlled and uncontrolled. There were a several retrospective reviews as well. A number of trials utilized intra-patient comparisons were noted as well, particularly in the field of studying keloid scarring, actinic keratoses, and melasma.
Most studies reported relatively similar adverse effects. The most commonly mentioned adverse effects included pain, erythema, crusting, and swelling. Notably severe adverse effects documented were worsening of pigmentary disorders or new pigmentary issues in the management of pigmentary disorders, scarring and infection. There was varying availability of the number or proportion of participants experiencing adverse effects. This information was included if it was reported.
A total of 501 articles were obtained from the initial search. The process for study selection was summarised in Figure 1 based on the PRISMA flow diagram [17]. Following deduplication, the title and abstracts for 314 articles were screened. Subsequently the full texts of 83 articles were sought for. Two studies were noted to be potentially meet inclusion criteria however these were excluded due to inaccessibility due to copyright restrictions [18,19]. After exclusion of articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 70 articles were included to be tabulated for the final analysis. For this, the results were divided into several groups with similar application of LADD.
The following tables and corresponding categories were used:
There are two main uses of laser-assisted drug delivery in this category-for the delivery of topical chemotherapeutics, and topical photosensitizers prior to photodynamic therapy. In both these conditions, there were relatively more side effects documented compared to other use cases for LADD in our study. The side effects captured included more severe effects less seen in the other applications of LADD such as scarring [21,23], purpura [33], hyperpigmentation [21,23,26,32,34], hypopigmentation [21,23] and bullae [26,32,34]. These adverse effects have been reported in LADD studies involving PDT and those without. Additionally, in the study by Lonsdorf 2022 [20], it was noted that 2 participants requested early termination of PDT following LADD due to pain. This could potentially reflect the relatively severe pain associated with LADD and PDT.
Another factor of interest is that all but one study quantified the proportion of participants that experienced adverse effects. This could reflect an increased vigilance of the authors in this area of study regarding the adverse effects of LADD.
The adverse effects regarding intralesional (injected) therapies for scarring was noted in Manuskiatti 2021 [36], Abd El-Dayem 2020 [37], Wang 2020 [40]–telangiectasia, hypopigmentation, skin atrophy. Multiple studies have investigated LADD for various types of scarring, with some directly comparing intralesional therapies as in Abd El-Dayem 2020 [37], Sabry 2020 [39] Park 2015 [43]. Various agents were used with LADD for scars with steroids being the most commonly used agent. Other agents included vitamin-C, growth factors, botulinum toxin and PRP. There were still several side effects that are usually associated with intralesional steroids which were present in LADD of steroids including telangiectasia mentioned in Wang 2020 [40] and dermal atrophy and telangiectasia in Waibel 2019 [41]. Future studies may be able to quantitatively compare this risk. Additionally, there were also mentions of hyperpigmentation following LADD for keloids/hypertrophic scars which could potentially represent post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation in this potentially predisposed patient cohort. However, nil systemic side effects were reported in these studies in those that reported the relative negative findings.
A significant number of studies have used laser-assisted drug delivery for the management of pigmentary conditions. Some of these studies recruited from populations that did not respond to topical therapy alone. In terms of the studies captured that used LADD in these conditions, it was noted that there was a notable number of pigment-related adverse effects noted such as the worsening of melasma in several patients as documented in Botsali 2022 [45] and Wanitphakdeedecha 2020 [49]. Additionally, hyperpigmentation in vitiligo was noted in Doghaim 2019 [50] and Huang 2019 [3].
Similar to the use of LADD for hypertrophic/keloid scarring, LADD has been investigated as a potential alternative to intralesional injections for alopecia areata and hair loss. The side effects reported were telangiectasia, pruritus, erythema, dandruff, and pain in several patients. All studies reported nil significant/serious adverse effects. Pain severity seems to be limited, with Hanthavichai 2021 [53] reporting tolerable pain and Bertin 2018 [56] reporting only mild pain. This could potentially be an advantage compared to intralesional injections, especially if multiple treatment sessions are needed. A common site for these conditions–the scalp–would also be comparatively more sensitive to pain. Hence, clinicians and patients may prefer LADD compared to intralesional injections if it is associated with less pain. Further studies may be done to quantify this. One limitation however, is the relatively limited number of patients studied for this application of LADD, with only 5 studies captured with the largest cohort of patients being 30 in Soror 2021 [54].
Acne vulgaris was another condition whereby LADD was utilized. Several side effects that were also seen in other therapeutic uses for LADD were observed such as erythema, desquamation, hyperpigmentation, oedema were noted. In Hædersdal 2008 [59] it was noted that 12/15 patients receiving LADD had pustular eruptions. One patient was managed as per cutaneous infection as well. The underlying condition of acne vulgaris may also be associated with this as well as pustular eruptions reported–it was not specified if the pustular eruptions were of similar characteristics or not to the patient’s usual acne. It was also not specified if this represents a worsening of the patient’s existing acne following the use of LADD.
A small number of studies have investigated the use of topical analgesia following application with laser. In these studies, a relatively small area (dorsum, deltoid) had laser application with a portable device prior to the application of a topical preparation of local anaesthetic. Pain was the main adverse effect following these trials however these studies all included the use of penetration of skin with needles/cannulation. It is noted that these articles were published between 2003 and 2006, with two studies with the same first author [60,61]. Further studies with larger sample sizes may be able to further inform outcomes related to safety as well as efficacy, should this application of LADD be utilized more frequently in the future.
Irradiation of the nails were used in conjunction with topical delivery of anti-fungal agents. These studies used laser application followed by a regime of topical application of antifungal agents. Adverse effects were limited to mainly pain, and some pinpoint bleeding, with pain reported in all studies. However, relative negative findings reported were notable for a relatively mild side effect profile. Bhatta 2016 [65] and Rajbanshi 2020 [66] reported nil contact dermatitis and dermatitis, respectively. Promisingly, this could be interpreted as the treatment regimen not causing significant surrounding irritation in those instances.
There were several studies in which LADD was used to deliver a variety of therapeutic agents, in use cases including medical and oncologic conditions. Bauer 2021 [70] was the only study within our review that investigated the delivery of a biologic therapeutic for chronic plaque psoriasis, with itching, redness, pain, and ulceration reported. There were also a few notably severe systemic effects captured such as GIT bleeding, abdominal cramping, hypertension, etc. which were explained by the authors to be unrelated to LADD. These systemic effects may be an area of which to be monitored in future studies of LADD involving biologic agents.
Within the other studies in this category there were a few generic side effects seen in other LADD applications. There were relatively few adverse effects reported for the use of LADD in the use of conditions for palmar hyperhidrosis, macular amyloidosis, cicatricial ectropion and common warts.
There were 2 studies investigating LADD for the delivery of timolol for infantile hemangiomas. These studies were more rigorous than others in monitoring patient parameters including clinical and laboratory findings, with only local reactions reported.
One study also investigated the use of LADD for patch testing, including patch testing for patients with known allergies to certain substances with patches that contain said substances, which was implied to be an intended effect of the use of LADD. The side effects were limited for this study, however, this was the only study with this application for LADD.
There were two articles which reported the use of lasers with imiquimod for tattoo removal. Urticaria was mentioned as an adverse effect, however it was noted that one subject had recurrent and generalized urticaria and facial angioedema in Ricotti 2007 [84]. There were also localized changes that were noted with this use-case of LADD.
Hyaluronic acid, a combination of vitamin C and growth factors, and amniotic membrane stem cells were used for cosmetic purposes with LADD [80,81,82]. The side effects of which included generic effects with ablative lasers. It was noted that acneiform eruption was noted in a patient with amniotic membrane stem cell [82], which could represent infection.
Two experimental studies were included. Banzhaf 2016 [85] aimed to study the penetration of substances, and have selected fluorescein to be studied. The side effects included generic ones associated with AFXL. Oni 2013 [86] investigated the serum levels of serum lidocaine with the application of a combination topical anaesthetic cream after two different types of lasers. Serum levels of lidocaine did rise significantly however did not reach a level specified to be toxic specified by the authors. These patients had laser irradiance of the face only. There is a potential risk if larger areas were utilized that a dangerous level of local anaesthetic may be present systemically, however this was not able to be quantitatively ascertained in this study.
4. Discussion
The authors believe that to date, this is the first systematic review regarding the aspect of safety and adverse effects associated with laser-assisted drug delivery. The utilization of the search string was intended to capture studies that reported regarding the safety aspect of laser-assisted drug delivery, even when it was not to be the primary outcome of the study. Quantitative analysis of the results was not the main objective of our study, rather we intended to portray broadly the themes regarding safety in LADD. The results reflect studies of a variety of structures with significantly varying reporting regarding safety. Moving forward, with the increasing evidence to guide optimal protocols, the aspect of safety should also be considered alongside efficacy.
Limitations to our study include the limited description and characterization of adverse effects by certain authors in the full text, where additional information would have been valuable for analysis. Many studies did not clearly specify the number of participants that experienced adverse effects as well, only stating symptoms observed. Additionally, the limited number of studies that performed long-term follow up is another factor whereby the assessment of adverse effects that may last for a longer duration of time were not captured. Bias of the authors would be another factor as many studies were non-controlled for, and obtaining data was done in an opportunistic method, for instance in retrospective reviews. Apart from notable exceptions such as Oni 2013 [87], and Ma 2014 [79], that monitored for physiologic parameters and regular blood tests post-treatment, most studies relied on patient and clinician findings for adverse effects, rather than objective markers. In terms of limitation of our study design, the use of topically delivered medications following laser therapy would technically fit the criteria of laser-assisted drug delivery. However, this may not be reported as laser-assisted drug delivery. Hence, our review may not capture all published instances of medication application following laser irradiation.
A particular challenge as well in obtaining the results included the heterogeneity of language used to describe adverse effects–this was manifested by many papers stating that there were nil systemic adverse effects, or others stating that there were no severe adverse effects which would be open to interpretation by the reader, although it likely implies that there was no systemic adverse effects, disfigurement, or life-threatening complications. For purposes of readability, the descriptions used by authors were used verbatim, if possible, with contractions for readability and formatting applied where needed.
To be considered as well would be that the adverse effects of LADD are inevitably linked to adverse effects from the use of lasers themselves. The use of lasers for dermatologic purposes has its own risk of adverse effects. The side effects of pain, erythema, crusting, and oedema have all been previously documented adverse effects of the use of lasers [87,88]. More severe side effects such as hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation have also been associated with the use of lasers alone. Various operation settings for lasers were used in each study captured. It would be likely that laser choice and laser power settings affect the occurrence of adverse effects as mentioned above.
It was noted that laser-assisted drug delivery has also been used on conjunction with photodynamic therapy [89]. Our findings show that there were multiple adverse effects as described above. The use of photodynamic therapy itself is associated with adverse effects [89,90,91]. From the studies investigating LADD with photodynamic therapy, there were similar side effects as with photodynamic therapy itself, including pain, erythema, discomfort and skin changes. Comparatively, these appear to have a higher rate of reported side effects compared to other uses of LADD however factors affecting this could be the mechanism of PDT itself, increased vigilance from the investigators and patient bias.
Of the more severe adverse effects were documented, one of which was generalized urticaria in a patient noted by Ricotti 2007 [84]. Localized urticaria has been reported as an adverse effect following laser therapy [92,93] however the authors have stated that this patient has had a generalized urticarial reaction. Allergic reactions similar to this have been previously reported with laser tattoo removal [94], in an immediate [95] or delayed presentation [96]. This has noted to be a rare complication of laser tattoo removal [94] however in the context of LADD it is important to consider that imiquimod may have had a role in this reaction.
The aggravation of pigmentary conditions is also a significant concern. LADD has been used for melasma and vitiligo which are conditions under this category [97,98]. Worsening of the aforementioned concerns were mentioned in Li 2022 [46], Wanitphakdeedecha 2020 [49], and Botsali 2022 [45]. Additionally, hyperpigmentation in vitiligo was noted in Doghaim 2019 [50] and Huang 2019 [3], which are new cosmetic concerns. Prior studies have indicated that the use of lasers in these conditions should be done with caution [99]. These adverse changes may cause distress to patients hence the risks of which should be considered.
One of the adverse effects described with the use of lasers in dermatology is “downtime” with different types of lasers yielding different results [100]. There were a significant number of mentions of erythema in many studies used in LADD. This could be more important to certain patient cohorts compared to others. Certain substances and therapies used with LADD is to be used for oncologic purposes such as with 5-fluorouracil and PDT have already been significantly associated with erythema when used alone [101,102]. However, in the use of LADD for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes especially when an alternative, non-LADD treatment route is available, downtime should be considered. This is an area which is subjective however clinicians may wish to consider this aspect when considering LADD.
The relevant negative findings should also be emphasized. Many all articles have reported no systemic side effects or adverse reactions. Besides this, there were no life-threatening adverse effects such as anaphylaxis or systemic toxicity from topical absorption.
5. Conclusions
Most laser-assisted drug delivery side effects have been limited to local reactions similar to that of laser therapy, in line with those associated with lasers themselves. The process is generally well tolerated with some exceptions. Some severe and systemic side effects were noted such as dyspigmentation, scarring and more rarely urticaria. Variable safety outcomes have been reported with different use-cases of LADD. In vivo studies may be of use to further characterize risk.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, W.H.S.N. and S.D.S.; methodology, W.H.S.N. and S.D.S.; title and abstract review, and full text review, W.H.S.N. and S.D.S.; writing of first draft, W.H.S.N.; supervision, S.D.S.; project administration, S.D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The search string provided in Appendix A was used to search the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase as stated. Data was extracted from the included articles as tabulated and cited.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no competing interest.
Abbreviations
PDT = Photodynamic therapy; 5-FU = 5-Fluorouracil; ALA = Aminolevulinic acid; MAL = Methyl aminolevulinate; PRP = Platelet-rich Plasma; BTX-A = Botulinum Toxin A; NBUVB = Narrow band UVB.
Appendix A
Search Strategy
((“laser assisted”) OR (“laser-assisted”) OR (“laser facilitated”) OR (“laser-facilitated”)) AND (medication OR drug) AND ((skin) OR (dermatology)) AND ((safety) OR (harm) OR (complication) OR (adverse) OR (toxicity)).
References
- Wenande, E.; Anderson, R.R.; Haedersdal, M. Fundamentals of fractional laser-assisted drug delivery: An in-depth guide to experimental methodology and data interpretation. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 153, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Labadie, J.G.; Ibrahim, S.A.; Worley, B.; Kang, B.Y.; Rakita, U.; Rigali, S.; Arndt, K.A.; Bernstein, E.; Brauer, J.A.; Chandra, S.; et al. Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery. JAMA Dermatol. 2022, 158, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, C.; Li, P.; Wang, B.; Deng, Y.; Li, J.; Mao, M.; Jian, D. Multi-Factors Associated With Efficacy and Adverse Events of Fractional Erbium:YAG Laser-Assisted Delivery of Topical Betamethasone for Stable Vitiligo: A Retrospective Analysis. Lasers Surg. Med. 2020, 52, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, B.W.; Levitt, A.E.; Erickson, B.P.; Ko, A.; Nikpoor, N.; Ezuddin, N.; Lee, W.W. Ablative Fractional Laser Resurfacing with Laser-Assisted Delivery of 5-Fluorouracil for the Treatment of Cicatricial Ectropion and Periocular Scarring. Ophthalmic Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 34, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacques, S.L.; McAuliffe, D.J.; Blank, I.H.; Parrish, J.A. Controlled removal of human stratum corneum by pulsed laser. J. Investig. Dermatol. 1987, 88, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruela, A.L.; Perissinato, A.G.; Lino, M.E.; Mudrik, P.S.; Pereira, G.R. Evaluation of skin absorption of drugs from topical and transdermal formulations. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 52, 527–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rapalli, V.K.; Singhvi, G. Dermato-pharmacokinetic: Assessment tools for topically applied dosage forms. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2021, 18, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Du, L.; Li, Q.; Li, Q.; Zhu, L.; Yang, M.; Wang, X.; Zhao, B.; Ma, S. How physical techniques improve the transdermal permeation of therapeutics: A review. Medicine 2022, 101, e29314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alegre-Sánchez, A.; Jiménez-Gómez, N.; Boixeda, P. Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery. Vehiculización de fármacos asistida por láser. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2018, 109, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haedersdal, M.; Sakamoto, F.H.; Farinelli, W.A.; Doukas, A.G.; Tam, J.; Anderson, R.R. Fractional CO(2) laser-assisted drug delivery. Lasers Surg. Med. 2010, 42, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bachhav, Y.G.; Heinrich, A.; Kalia, Y.N. Using laser microporation to improve transdermal delivery of diclofenac: Increasing bioavailability and the range of therapeutic applications. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2011, 78, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sklar, L.R.; Burnett, C.T.; Waibel, J.S.; Moy, R.L.; Ozog, D.M. Laser assisted drug delivery: A review of an evolving technology. Lasers Surg. Med. 2014, 46, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ali, F.R.; Al-Niaimi, F. Laser-assisted drug delivery in dermatology: From animal models to clinical practice. Lasers Med. Sci. 2016, 31, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Truong, K.; Prasidha, I.; Wain, T. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials investigating laser assisted drug delivery for the treatment of keloid and hypertrophic scars. Lasers Med. Sci. 2022, 37, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steeb, T.; Schlager, J.G.; Kohl, C.; Ruzicka, T.; Heppt, M.V.; Berking, C. Laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 80, 947–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, W.H.S.; Smith, S.D. Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events; OSF: Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alster, T.S.; Tanzi, E.L. Photodynamic therapy with topical aminolevulinic acid and pulsed dye laser irradiation for sebaceous hyperplasia. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2003, 2, 501–504. [Google Scholar]
- Stevenson, M.L.; Karen, J.K.; Hale, E.K. Laser-Assisted Photodynamic Therapy: Two Novel Protocols for Enhanced Treatment Results. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2017, 16, 329–331. [Google Scholar]
- Lonsdorf, A.S.; Keller, A.; Hartmann, J.; Enk, A.H.; Gholam, P. Ablative Fractional Laser-assisted Low-irradiance Photodynamic Therapy for Treatment of Actinic Keratoses in Organ Transplant Recipients: A Prospective, Randomized, Intraindividual Controlled Trial. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2022, 102, adv00694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredman, G.; Wenande, E.; Hendel, K.; Togsverd-Bo, K.; Haedersdal, M. Efficacy and safety of laser-assisted combination chemotherapy: A follow-up study of treatment with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin for basal cell carcinoma. Lasers Surg. Med. 2022, 54, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paasch, U.; Said, T. Treating Field Cancerization by Ablative Fractional Laser and Indoor Daylight: Assessment of Efficacy and Tolerability. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2020, 19, 425–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wenande, E.; Hendel, K.; Mogensen, M.; Bagger, C.; Mårtensson, N.L.; Persson, D.P.; Lerche, C.M.; Husted, S.; Janfelt, C.; Togsverd-Bo, K.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Laser-Assisted Combination Chemotherapy: An Explorative Imaging-Guided Treatment With 5-Fluorouracil and Cisplatin for Basal Cell Carcinoma. Lasers Surg. Med. 2021, 53, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pires, M.T.F.; Pereira, A.D.; Durães, S.M.B.; Issa, M.C.A.; Pires, M. Laser-assisted MAL-PDT associated with acoustic pressure wave ultrasound with short incubation time for field cancerization treatment: A left-right comparison. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 2019, 28, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dairi, M.; Dadban, A.; Arnault, J.P.; Lok, C.; Chaby, G. Localized mycosis fungoides treated with laser-assisted photodynamic therapy: A case series. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2019, 44, 930–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, H.J.; Song, K.H. Ablative fractional laser-assisted photodynamic therapy provides superior long-term efficacy compared with standard methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy for lower extremity Bowen disease. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2018, 79, 860–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrani, F.; Sotiriou, E.; Lazaridou, E.; Vakirlis, E.; Sideris, N.; Kirmanidou, E.; Apalla, Z.; Lallas, A.; Ioannides, D. Short incubation fractional CO2 laser-assisted photodynamic therapy vs. conventional photodynamic therapy in field-cancerized skin: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized intraindividual comparison study. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2019, 33, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hsu, S.H.; Gan, S.D.; Nguyen, B.T.; Konnikov, N.; Liang, C.A. Ablative Fractional Laser-Assisted Topical Fluorouracil for the Treatment of Superficial Basal Cell Carcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma In Situ: A Follow-Up Study. Dermatol. Surg. 2016, 42, 1050–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nisticò, S.; Sannino, M.; Del Duca, E.; Tamburi, F.; Bottoni, U.; Cannarozzo, G. Ablative fractional laser improves treatment of actinic keratoses with Ingenol Mebutate. Eur. J. Inflamm. 2016, 14, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Braun, S.A.; Hevezi, P.; Homey, B.; Gerber, P.A. Laser-assisted drug delivery: Enhanced response to ingenol mebutate after ablative fractional laser treatment. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2015, 72, 364–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.H.; Kim, K.H.; Song, K.H. Efficacy of ablative fractional laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for the treatment of actinic cheilitis: 12-month follow-up results of a prospective, randomized, comparative trial. Br. J. Dermatol. 2015, 173, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.H.; Kim, K.H.; Song, K.H. Efficacy of ablative fractional laser-assisted photodynamic therapy with short-incubation time for the treatment of facial and scalp actinic keratosis: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized, prospective, comparative trial. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2015, 29, 1598–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Helsing, P.; Togsverd-Bo, K.; Veierød, M.B.; Mørk, G.; Haedersdal, M. Intensified fractional CO2 laser-assisted photodynamic therapy vs. laser alone for organ transplant recipients with multiple actinic keratoses and wart-like lesions: A randomized half-side comparative trial on dorsal hands. Br. J. Dermatol. 2013, 169, 1087–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ko, D.Y.; Jeon, S.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Song, K.H. Fractional erbium: YAG laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for facial actinic keratoses: A randomized, comparative, prospective study. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2014, 28, 1529–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Machado, B.H.B.; Zhang, J.; Frame, J.; Najlah, M. Treatment of Scars with Laser-Assisted Delivery of Growth Factors and Vitamin C: A Comparative, Randomised, Double-blind, Early Clinical Trial. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2021, 45, 2363–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuskiatti, W.; Kaewkes, A.; Yan, C.; Ng, J.N.; Glahn, J.Z.; Wanitphakdeedecha, R. Hypertrophic Scar Outcomes in Fractional Laser Monotherapy Versus Fractional Laser-Assisted Topical Corticosteroid Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2021, 101, adv00416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd El-Dayem, D.H.; Nada, H.A.; Hanafy, N.S.; Elsaie, M.L. Laser-assisted topical steroid application versus steroid injection for treating keloids: A split side study. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021, 20, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neinaa, Y.M.E.; Al-Khayat, L.A.; Suliman, G.A.M.; Ameen, T.E. Fractional carbon dioxide laser-assisted delivery of lyophilized-growth factors is a promising treatment modality of post-acne scars. Dermatol. Ther. 2020, 33, e14488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabry, H.H.; Ibrahim, E.A.; Hamed, A.M. Assessment of laser-assisted delivery vs intralesional injection of botulinum toxin A in treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids. Dermatol. Ther. 2020, 33, e13980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wu, J.; Xu, M.; Gao, Q.; Chen, B.; Wang, F.; Song, H. Combination therapy of refractory keloid with ultrapulse fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser and topical triamcinolone in Asians-long-term prevention of keloid recurrence. Dermatol. Ther. 2020, 33, e14359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waibel, J.S.; Wulkan, A.J.; Rudnick, A.; Daoud, A. Treatment of Hypertrophic Scars Using Laser-Assisted Corticosteroid Versus Laser-Assisted 5-Fluorouracil Delivery. Dermatol. Surg. 2019, 45, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraeva, E.; Ho, D.; Jagdeo, J. Successful Treatment of Keloid with Fractionated Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Laser and Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery of Triamcinolone Acetonide Ointment in an African-American Man. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2017, 16, 925–927. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Park, J.H.; Chun, J.Y.; Lee, J.H. Laser-assisted topical corticosteroid delivery for the treatment of keloids. Lasers Med. Sci. 2017, 32, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cavalié, M.; Sillard, L.; Montaudié, H.; Bahadoran, P.; Lacour, J.P.; Passeron, T. Treatment of keloids with laser-assisted topical steroid delivery: A retrospective study of 23 cases. Dermatol. Ther. 2015, 28, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botsali, A.; Esme, P.; Erbil, H.; Caliskan, E. Comparison of fractional erbium:YAG laser-assisted tranexamic acid delivery alone and in combination with oral tranexamic acid in melasma. Lasers Med. Sci. 2022, 37, 2823–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Yao, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, L.; Song, Y. Efficacy and safety of 755-nm picosecond alexandrite laser with topical tranexamic acid versus laser monotherapy for melasma and facial rejuvenation: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, split-face study in Chinese patients. Lasers Med. Sci. 2022, 37, 2879–2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, S.J.; Park, J.W.; Seo, S.J.; Park, K.Y. Evaluating the tolerance and efficacy of laser-assisted delivery of tranexamic acid, niacinamide, and kojic acid for melasma: A single center, prospective, split-face trial. Dermatol. Ther. 2022, 35, e15287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.V.; Christman, M.P.; Feng, H.; Ferzli, G.; Jeon, H.; Geronemus, R.G. Laser-assisted delivery of tranexamic acid for melasma: Pilot study using a novel 1927 nm fractional thulium fiber laser. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021, 20, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanitphakdeedecha, R.; Sy-Alvarado, F.; Patthamalai, P.; Techapichetvanich, T.; Eimpunth, S.; Manuskiatti, W. The efficacy in treatment of facial melasma with thulium 1927-nm fractional laser-assisted topical tranexamic acid delivery: A split-face, double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study. Lasers Med. Sci. 2020, 35, 2015–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doghaim, N.N.; El-Tatawy, R.A.; Ismail, M.A.; Ali, D.A.M.; El Attar, Y.A. Study the effect of erbium:YAG laser plus topical 5-flurouracil in stable vitiligo resistant to NB-UVB phototherapy. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2020, 19, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badawi, A.M.; Osman, M.A. Fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser-assisted drug delivery of hydroquinone in the treatment of melasma. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. 2018, 11, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yan, R.; Yuan, J.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.-H.; Wu, Y.; Gao, X.-H.; Chen, H.-D. Fractional Er:YAG laser assisting topical betamethasone solution in combination with NB-UVB for resistant non-segmental vitiligo. Lasers Med. Sci. 2017, 32, 1571–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanthavichai, S.; Archavarungson, N.; Wongsuk, T. A study to assess the efficacy of fractional carbon dioxide laser with topical platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Lasers Med. Sci. 2022, 37, 2279–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soror, O.A.; Abdel-Bary, A.; Khalil, B.M. Fractional carbon dioxide laser-assisted topical steroid delivery versus intralesional steroid in the treatment of alopecia areata. J. Egypt. Women’s Dermatol. Soc. 2021, 18, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majid, I.; Jeelani, S.; Imran, S. Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser in Combination with Topical Corticosteroid Application in Resistant Alopecia Areata: A Case Series. J. Cutan. Aesthet. Surg. 2018, 11, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bertin, A.C.J.; Vilarinho, A.; Junqueira, A.L.A. Fractional non-ablative laser-assisted drug delivery leads to improvement in male and female pattern hair loss. J. Cosmet. Laser Ther. 2018, 20, 391–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.I.; Ahn, H.J.; Kang, I.H.; Jeong, K.H.; Kim, N.I.; Shin, M.K. Nonablative fractional laser-assisted daylight photodynamic therapy with topical methyl aminolevulinate for moderate to severe facial acne vulgaris: Results of a randomized and comparative study. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2017, 33, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J.Y.; Hong, J.S.; Ahn, C.H.; Yoon, J.Y.; Kwon, H.H.; Suh, D.H. Prospective randomized controlled clinical and histopathological study of acne vulgaris treated with dual mode of quasi-long pulse and Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser assisted with a topically applied carbon suspension. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2012, 66, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haedersdal, M.; Togsverd-Bo, K.; Wiegell, S.R.; Wulf, H.C. Long-pulsed dye laser versus long-pulsed dye laser-assisted photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2008, 58, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, A.J.; Weeks, R.; Regev, R. Laser-assisted anesthesia reduces the pain of venous cannulation in children and adults: A randomized controlled trial. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2006, 13, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, A.J.; Regev, R.; Weeks, R.; Tlockowski, D.S. Laser-assisted anesthesia prior to intravenous cannulation in volunteers: A randomized, controlled trial. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2005, 12, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, E.D.; Harris, L.; Redpath, W.S.; Shapiro, H.; Hetzel, F.; Morley, G.; Bar-Or, D.; Stevens, S.R. Laser-assisted penetration of topical anesthetic in adults. Arch. Dermatol. 2003, 139, 1288–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdallah, M.; Abu-Ghali, M.M.; El-Sayed, M.T.; Soltan, M.Y. Fractional CO2-assisted photodynamic therapy improves the clinical outcome and patient’s satisfaction in toenail onychomycosis treatment: An intra-patient comparative single-center study. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2022, 33, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koren, A.; Salameh, F.; Sprecher, E.; Artzi, O. Laser-assisted Photodynamic Therapy or Laser-assisted Amorolfine Lacquer Delivery for Treatment of Toenail Onychomycosis: An Open-label Comparative Study. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2018, 98, 467–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhatta, A.K.; Keyal, U.; Huang, X.; Zhao, J.J. Fractional carbon-dioxide (CO2) laser-assisted topical therapy for the treatment of onychomycosis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2016, 74, 916–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajbanshi, B.; Shen, L.; Jiang, M.; Gao, Q.; Huang, X.; Ma, J.; Wang, J.; Hu, Y.; Lv, H.; Wu, X.; et al. Comparative Study of Traditional Ablative CO2 Laser-Assisted Topical Antifungal with only Topical Antifungal for Treating Onychomycosis: A Multicenter Study. Clin. Drug Investig. 2020, 40, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agamia, N.F.; Sobhy, N.; Abd-Elraouf, A.; Tawfik, A. Fractional CO2 Laser for Transcutaneous Drug Delivery of Onabotulinum Toxin in Palmar Hyperhidrosis. Dermatol. Surg. 2021, 47, 678–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, H.; Kazemi, T.; Farah, R.S. Safety profile of laser-assisted drug delivery of vitamin C, E, and ferulic acid serum following ablative fractional resurfacing: A retrospective chart review. J. Cosmet. Laser Ther. 2021, 23, 207–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.V.; Ugonabo, N.; Geronemus, R.G. Fractional Ablative Laser-Assisted Delivery of Topical Poly-l-lactic Acid: A 2.5-Year Safety Review. Dermatol. Surg. 2022, 48, 258–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, M.; Lackner, E.; Matzneller, P.; Al Jalali, V.; Pajenda, S.; Ling, V.; Böhler, C.; Braun, W.; Braun, R.; Boesch, M.; et al. Phase I Study to Assess Safety of Laser-Assisted Topical Administration of an Anti-TNF Biologic in Patients with Chronic Plaque-Type Psoriasis. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 712511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essa Abd Elazim, N.; Mahmoud Abdelsalam, A.; Mohamed Awad, S. Efficacy of combined fractional carbon dioxide laser and topical tazarotene in nail psoriasis treatment: A randomized intrapatient left-to-right study. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2022, 21, 2808–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmy, A.Y.; El Batreek, M.H.; Abdel Fadeel, D.A.; Tawfik, A.A.; Samy, N.A. Efficacy of the topical cyclosporine cream assisted by fractional carbon dioxide laser vs topical clobetasol cream for the treatment of plaque psoriasis: Randomized comparative study. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2022, 21, 3362–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, L.; Wang, C.; Cao, Y.; Lv, X.; Tian, L.; Liu, D.; Li, L.; Zhao, W. Fractional 2940-nm Er:YAG laser-assisted drug delivery of timolol maleate for the treatment of deep infantile hemangioma. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2021, 32, 1053–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Junsuwan, N.; Manuskiatti, W.; Phothong, W.; Wanitphakdeedecha, R. Fractional CO2 laser-assisted Botulinum toxin type A delivery for the treatment of primary palmar hyperhidrosis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2021, 36, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shehadeh, W.; Matz, H.; Ellenbogen, E.; Sprecher, E.; Artzi, O. Pulse-Dye Laser Followed by Betamethasone-Calcipotriol and Fractional Ablative CO2-Laser-Assisted Delivery for Nail Psoriasis. Dermatol. Surg. 2021, 47, e111–e116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sobhi, R.M.; Sharaoui, I.; El Nabarawy, E.A.; El Nemr Esmail, R.S.; Hegazy, R.A.; Aref, D.H.F. Comparative study of fractional CO2 laser and fractional CO2 laser-assisted drug delivery of topical steroid and topical vitamin C in macular amyloidosis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2018, 33, 909–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, S.M.; Kim, G.W.; Mun, J.H.; Song, M.; Kim, H.-S.; Kim, B.-S.; Kim, M.-B.; Ko, H.-C. Fractional Laser-Assisted Topical Imiquimod 5% Cream Treatment for Recalcitrant Common Warts in Children: A Pilot Study. Dermatol. Surg. 2016, 42, 1340–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, G.; Wu, P.; Lin, X.; Chen, H.; Hu, X.; Jin, Y.; Qiu, Y. Fractional carbon dioxide laser-assisted drug delivery of topical timolol solution for the treatment of deep infantile hemangioma: A pilot study. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2014, 31, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veremis-Ley, M.; Ramirez, H.; Baron, E.; Hanneman, K.; Lankerani, L.; Scull, H.; Cooper, K.D.; Nedorost, S. Laser-assisted penetration of allergens for patch testing. Dermatitis 2006, 17, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benzaquen, M.; Fongue, J.; Pauly, V.; Collet-Villette, A.M. Laser-Assisted Hyaluronic Acid Delivery by Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser in Facial Skin Remodeling: A Prospective Randomized Split-Face Study in France. Lasers Surg. Med. 2021, 53, 1166–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, B.H.B.; Frame, J.; Zhang, J.; Najlah, M. Comparative Study on the Outcome of Periorbital Wrinkles Treated with Laser-Assisted Delivery of Vitamin C or Vitamin C Plus Growth Factors: A Randomized, Double-blind, Clinical Trial. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2021, 45, 1020–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Widianingsih, N.P.; Setyaningrum, T.; Prakoeswa, C.R. The efficacy and safety of fractional erbium YAG laser combined with topical amniotic membrane stem cell (AMSC) metabolite product for facial rejuvenation: A controlled, Split-Face Study. Dermatol. Rep. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsaie, M.L.; Nouri, K.; Vejjabhinanta, V.; Rivas, M.P.; Villafradez-Diaz, L.M.; Martins, A.; Rosso, R. Topical imiquimod in conjunction with Nd:YAG laser for tattoo removal. Lasers Med. Sci. 2009, 24, 871–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricotti, C.A.; Colaco, S.M.; Shamma, H.N.; Trevino, J.; Palmer, G.; Heaphy, M.R., Jr. Laser-assisted tattoo removal with topical 5% imiquimod cream. Dermatol. Surg. 2007, 33, 1082–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Banzhaf, C.A.; Thaysen-Petersen, D.; Bay, C.; Philipsen, P.A.; Mogensen, M.; Prow, T.; Haedersdal, M. Fractional laser-assisted drug uptake: Impact of time-related topical application to achieve enhanced delivery. Lasers Surg. Med. 2017, 49, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oni, G.; Rasko, Y.; Kenkel, J. Topical lidocaine enhanced by laser pretreatment: A safe and effective method of analgesia for facial rejuvenation. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2013, 33, 854–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prohaska, J.; Hohman, M.H. Laser Complications. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, M.; Warycha, M. Complications of lasers and light treatments. Dermatol. Ther. 2011, 24, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexiades-Armenakas, M. Laser-mediated photodynamic therapy. Clin. Dermatol. 2006, 24, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibbotson, S.H.; Wong, T.H.; Morton, C.A.; Collier, N.; Haylett, A.; McKenna, K.; Mallipeddi, R.; Moseley, H.; Rhodes, L.; Seukeran, D.; et al. Adverse effects of topical photodynamic therapy: A consensus review and approach to management. Br. J. Dermatol. 2019, 180, 715–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piaserico, S.; Mazzetto, R.; Sartor, E.; Bortoletti, C. Combination-Based Strategies for the Treatment of Actinic Keratoses with Photodynamic Therapy: An Evidence-Based Review. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landa, N.; Corrons, N.; Zabalza, I.; Azpiazu, J.L. Urticaria induced by laser epilation: A clinical and histopathological study with extended follow-up in 36 patients. Lasers Surg. Med. 2012, 44, 384–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- England, R.W.; Vogel, P.; Hagan, L. Immediate cutaneous hypersensitivity after treatment of tattoo with nd:YAG laser: A case report and review of the literature. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002, 89, 215–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khunger, N.; Molpariya, A.; Khunger, A. Complications of Tattoos and Tattoo Removal: Stop and Think Before you ink. J. Cutan. Aesthet. Surg. 2015, 8, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilken, R.; Ho, D.; Petukhova, T.; Jagdeo, J. Intraoperative localized urticarial reaction during Q-switched Nd:YAG laser tattoo removal. J. Drugs Dermatol. 2015, 14, 303–304. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hibler, B.P.; Rossi, A.M. A case of delayed anaphylaxis after laser tattoo removal. JAAD Case Rep. 2015, 1, 80–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, A.Y. Recent progress in melasma pathogenesis. Pigment. Cell Melanoma Res. 2015, 28, 648–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seneschal, J.; Boniface, K.; D’Arino, A.; Picardo, M. An update on Vitiligo pathogenesis. Pigment. Cell Melanoma Res. 2021, 34, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, E.P.; Hanke, C.W. Review of the literature: Treatment of dyspigmentation with fractionated resurfacing. Dermatol. Surg. 2010, 36, 1499–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preissig, J.; Hamilton, K.; Markus, R. Current Laser Resurfacing Technologies: A Review that Delves Beneath the Surface. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2012, 26, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Love, W.E.; Bernhard, J.D.; Bordeaux, J.S. Topical imiquimod or fluorouracil therapy for basal and squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review. Arch. Dermatol. 2009, 145, 1431–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibbotson, S.H. Adverse effects of topical photodynamic therapy. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2011, 27, 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
PRISMA-style flow diagram for study selection.
Table 1.
Skin cancers/oncology/pre-cancerous lesions.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lonsdorf 2022 [20] | Intrapatient comparison | 18 | AKs in organ transplant recipients | LADD + MAL-PDT vs. PDT | AFXL Er:YAG | Pain necessitating early termination of PDT (n = 2) | No therapy-associated systemic side-effects on day of rx and in F/U period |
| Fredman 2022 [21] | Single arm (follow up from previous study) | 20 | BCC (superficial & low-risk nodular) | LADD + Cisplatin + 5-FU | AFXL CO2 | Persistent erythema (n = 5, <6 months; n = 2, @12 months), Hypopigmentation (n = 11 @12 months), Hyperpigmentation (n = 10 @3 months; n = 4 @6months) Scarring (n = 8 @6 months; n = 4 @12 months) Temporary crusting, inflammation | Nil severe adverse events |
| Paasch 2020 [22] | Prospective uncontrolled | 46 | Field cancerization (AK) | LADD + ALA-PDT (indoor light) | AFXL CO2 | Pain (severe) | - |
| Wenande 2020 [23] | Single arm, prospective | 19 | BCC | LADD + 5-FU and cisplatin | AFXL CO2 | Ooze (100%), Persistent erythema (83%), Hyperpigmentation (56%), Scarring (50%), Oedema, pruritus (32%), Mild hypopigmentation (17%) | Nil reported infection, systemic symptoms Nil cisplatin, 5-FU detected in blood 24h post-treatment (6 patients tested) |
| Pires 2019 [24] | Intrapatient comparison (split-arm) | 15 | AK | LADD + Acoustic pressure wave ultrasound + MAL-PDT vs. MAL-PDT | AFXL CO2 | Mild pain (all, <3 h), Erythema, edema, crusts (all, <15 days) | Nil scarring on follow-up |
| Dairi 2018 [25] | Case series | 4 | Mycosis fungoides | LADD+MAL-PDT | AFXL CO2 | Varying degrees of pain, local irritation, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation lasting months (all) | Nil other adverse events noted |
| Kim 2018 [26] | Prospective uncontrolled | 30 | Lower extremity Bowen disease | LADD + MAL-PDT | AFXL Er:YAG | Erythema (n = 28 <7 days), Crusting (n = 24), Hyperpigmentation (n = 23), Burning sensation (n = 22), Pruritus (n = 21) Oedema (n = 9), Bullae (n = 3), Pain | - |
| Vrani 2018 [27] | Intrapatient comparison | 50 | AK | LADD + MAL-PDT vs. PDT | AFXL CO2 | Erythema, oedema (all) Pustular eruption and crusting formation (n = 15). | Nil pain with AFXL, nil post-procedure scarring/pigmentary changes |
| Hsu 2016 [28] | Prospective single arm | 28 | Primary SCCis and sBCC | LADD + 5-FU | AFXL CO2 | - | Nil treatment-related adverse events |
| Nisticò 2016 [29] | Intrapatient comparison | 13 | AK | LADD + Ingenol Mebutate vs. Ingenol Mebutate | AFXL CO2 | Erythema (n = 13), Vesicles (n = 8), Oozing & crusts (n = 4) | |
| Braun 2015 [30] | Case report | 1 | Multiple AK | LADD + Ingenol mebutate | AFXL Er:YAG | - | No systemic side effects or safety concerns |
| Choi 2015 [31] | Prospective, dual arm | 14 | Actinic chelitis | LADD + MAL-PDT vs. MAL-PDT | AFXL Er:YAG | Mild-moderate pain (all, <7 d) Erythema (n = 13), Burning sensation (n = 13), Swelling, (n = 5) Haemorrhagic crusting (n = 3), Blistering (n = 2) | Nil systemic adverse effects |
| Choi 2015 [32] | Prospective, three-arm | 64 | AK | LADD + 2h MAL-PDT vs. LADD + 3h MAL-PDT vs. MAL-PDT | AFXL Er:YAG | 2h vs. 3h Crust (86.8% vs. 82.8%), Erythema (78.1% vs. 80%), Hyperpigmentation (75.5% vs. 75.9%), Burning sensation (73.5%, vs. 75.9%), Pruritus (45.7%, vs. 52.4%) Oedema (7.9% vs. 6.9%), Bullae (4.6% vs. 6.2%) | Phototoxic adverse events were mild-moderate, short duration, did not require additional therapy |
| Helsing 2013 [33] | Intrapatient comparison | 10 | AK and wart-like lesions in organ transplant recipients | LADD + MAL-PDT vs. AFXL laser only | AFXL CO2 | Intense inflammation and purpura (n=3) Erythema, oedema, pain (n=3) | - |
| Ko 2013 [34] | Prospective, dual arm | 23 | Facial AK | LADD + MAL-PDT vs. MAL-PDT | AFXL Er:YAG | Erythema (100%), Hyperpigmentation (100%, <20weeks)) Crust (100%), Burning sensation (73.8%), Pruritus (53.3%), Bleeding (31.8%), Scale (31.8%), Oedema (8.4%), Bullae (6.5%) | - |
Table 2.
Scars.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Machado 2021 [35] | RCT–2 arms | 132 | Scars (misc) | LADD + Vitamin C vs. LADD + Vitamin C and Growth Factors | AFXL ErYag | Nil reported | Nil local or systemic adverse reaction |
| Manuskiatti 2021 [36] | Intrapatient comparison (split-scar) | 24 | Hypertrophic scars | LADD + Clobetasol Propionate vs. LADD + Petrolatum | AFXL Er:YAG | Nil reported | Nil telangiectasias, dyspigmentation, skin atrophy, acneiform eruption |
| Abd El-Dayem 2020 [37] | Intrapatient comparison | 30 | Keloid scars | LADD betamethasone vs. intralesional triamcinolone acetonide | AFXL Er:YAG | Hyperpigmentation (n = 2) | No serious side effects |
| Neinaa 2020 [38] | Intrapatient comparison | 45 | Post-acne scars | LADD lypophylized-growth factors vs. LADD PRP | AFXL CO2 | PRP vs. L-GFs Mild post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (n = 8 vs. n = 13), Moderate post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (n = 5 vs. n = 0) Acneiform eruption (n = 8) Downtime (2–5 days) Pain (<3 days) | No major side effects |
| Sabry 2020 [39] | Intrapatient comparison (split-scar) | 20 | Keloids/hypetrophic scars | LADD + BTX-A vs. Intralesional BTX-A | AFXL CO2 | Pain, pruritus | - |
| Wang 2020 [40] | Prospective uncontrolled | 41 | Refractory keloids | LADD + Triamcinolone | AFXL CO2 | Telengiectasia (n = 1), Hyperpigmentation (n = 4) | Nil allergic reaction, infection |
| Waibel 2019 [41] | Prospective–2 arms | 20 | Hypertrophic scars | LADD + Triamcinolone vs. LADD+5-FU | AFXL CO2 | With LADD + triamcinolone-dermal atrophy, telangiectasia, persistent erythema | - |
| Kraeva 2017 [42] | Case report | 1 | Keloid scar (Fitzpatrick type VI skin) | LADD+ Triamcinolone acetonide | AFXL CO2 | - | Nil complications or adverse events |
| Park 2015 [43] | Intrapatient comparison | 10 | Keloid scars (from BCG vaccination) | LADD + Desoxymethasone vs. AFXL+ Triamcinolone acetonide | AFXL Er:YAG | Micro-crust | No serious adverse reactions or events |
| Cavalié 2014 [44] | Retrospective cohort | 23 | Treatment resistant keloids | LADD betamethasone under occlusion | AFXL Er:YAG | Hypochromia in darker skin types, (n = 5 <1 month), Folliculitis (n = 3), Eczematous reaction to occlusive film (n = 3), Pain | - |
Table 3.
Pigmentary disorders.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botsali 2022 [45] | Propsective trial | 54 | Melasma | LADD 5% Tranexamic Acid vs. LADD 5% Tranexamic + Oral Tranexamic Acid | AFXL Er:YAG | Increase in MASI (1.8–3.2 points) in skin types III, IV (n = 2) | No serious adverse effects |
| Li 2022 [46] | Intrapatient comparison | 37 | Melasma | LADD+ 10% Tranexamic acid vs. Laser + saline | 755 nm picosecond alexandrite | Irritation (n = 17), Erythema (n = 36), Dryness (n = 36), Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (n = 10), Scaling (n = 3) | Nil hypopigmentation, infection, and scarring |
| Park 2021 [47] | Intrapatient comparison | 25 | Melasma | LADD + 3%Tranexamic acid, 5% Niacinamide, 1% Kojic acid vs. Nd-YAG alone | Q-switched Nd:YAG | Facial erythema (self-limiting) | Treatment was well-tolerated |
| Wang 2020 [48] | Prospective study | 10 | Melasma | LADD Tranexamic Acid | 1927nm fractional thulium | Transient (skin) roughness, dryness, itching | All adverse effects were mild |
| Wanitphakdeedecha 2020 [49] | Intrapatient comparison | 46 | Facial melasma | LADD + 1.2% Tranexamic acid vs. Laser + Saline | FTL | Mild hyperpigmentation (n = 4) Mild pain | No scarring, hypopigmentation, or persistent erythema |
| Doghaim 2019 [50] | Intrapatient comparison | 40 | Stable vitiligo resistant to NBUVB | LADD + 5-FU + NBUVB vs. NBUVB | AFXL Er:YAG | Transient hyperpigmentation (all), Minimal scarring (n = 1), Tolerable pain (all) | Nil Koebnerization on follow-up |
| Huang 2019 [3] | Retrospective review; single arm | 684 | Stable vitiligo | LADD + Betamethasone | AFXL Er:YAG | Slight erythema, oedema (all) Hyperpigmentation (14.4%) Epidermal atrophy, telangiectasia, and hypertrichosis in lesions (0.14%) | Nil local infections, scarring, Koebner’s phenomenon, and aggravation of vitiligo |
| Badawi 2018 [51] | Intrapatient comparison (split-face) | 32 | Melasma | LADD + Hydroxychloroquine vs. hydroxychloroquine | AFXL Er:YAG | Erythema (all, <4 days), Superficial crusting, burning sensation (n = 7), Pruritus (n = 3), Superficial crusting | Nil worsening of melasma |
| Yan 2016 [52] | Intrapatient comparison | 22 | Non-segmental, resistant vitiligo | LADD + Betamethasone+ NBUVB vs. NBUVB | AFXL Er:YAG | Slight pain, burning sensation, edema, erythema (all), Micro-crust (~50%, <3 days) | Nil local infection, scarring, Koebner phenomenon, aggravation of vitiligo |
Table 4.
Hair loss/alopecia.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanthavichai 2021 [53] | Prospective trial | 8 | Androgenetic alopecia | LADD + PRP | AFXL CO2 | Tolerable pain (n = 7, <several days) Mild pruritus (n = 2, <several days), Dandruff (n = 4, pts <2 weeks) | Analgesia not required before/after LADD Nil participants withdrew from study due to pain No serious adverse events such as infection, scarring, worsening of hair loss, and burn No scalp erythema and swelling were detected |
| Soror 2021 [54] | Intrapatient comparison | 30 | Alopecia areata | LADD + Triamcinolone vs. Intralesional Triamcinolone | AFXL CO2 | Mild telangiectasia (n = 1) | No significant adverse effects |
| Majid 2019 [55] | Case series | 10 | Alopecia areata | LADD + Triamcinolone | AFXL CO2 | - | No significant adverse effects, skin atrophy |
| Bertin 2018 [56] | Case series | 5 | Female/male pattern hair loss | LADD of topical finasteride, growth factors (vEGF, FGF, IGF, cooper peptide) | Non-ablative 1550 nm fractional Er:Glass | Mild pain, post-procedure transient erythema; (n = 2, <2 h) | “No significant side effects” |
Table 5.
Acne vulgaris.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim 2017 [57] | Prospective trial | 14 | Severe acne vulgaris | LADD + MAL + DL-PDT vs. MAL + DL-PDT | Non-ablative Er:glass | Erythema (n = 2, <1 week), Hyperpigmentation (n = 1), Tanning (n = 1) Pain | Nil bullae, crust, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation |
| Jung 2011 [58] | Intrapatient comparison | 22 | Acne vulgaris | LADD + carbon lotion vs. Laser only. Noted that laser was after lotion application | Quasi-long and Q-switched ND:YAG | Transient erythema (all, <3 h), Mild dryness, mild desquamation (n = 15) Mild pain | Nil severe adverse events |
| Hædersdal 2008 [59] | Intrapatient comparison (split-face) | 15 | Acne vulgaris | LADD + MAL vs. Laser only | Long-pulsed dye laser | Erythema, oedema (n = 15) Pustular eruptions (n = 12) Yellow crusting mx with topical abx (n = 1) Moderate-severe pain | Nil long-term adverse reactions such as pigment changes, scarring |
Table 6.
Analgesia.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singer 2006 [60] | RCT | 30 | Pre- cannulation analgesia | LADD + Lidocaine vs. lidocaine | AFXL Er:YAG | Mild pain with laser | Nil persistent erythema, infections |
| Singer 2005 [61] | RCT (Intrapatient comparison) | 30 | Pre- cannulation analgesia | LADD + Lidocaine vs. lidocaine | Er:YAG | Mild pain | Nil persistent erythema, infection, or scarring |
| Baron 2003 [62] | 2x trials, Prospective dual arm | 320 | Needlestick (investigating analgesia efficacy) | LADD + Lidocaine vs. Laser + Placebo AND LADD + Lidocaine vs. Topical Lidocaine | Er:YAG | Mild pain, Erythema (n = 10) | - |
Table 7.
Onychomycosis.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdallah 2022 [63] | Intrapatient comparison (foot vs. foot) | 21 | Onychomycosis | LADD + PDT vs. PDT | AFXL CO2 | Significant pain (n = 21), Pinpoint bleeding (n = 3) | All side effects were tolerated and temporary. |
| Koren 2017 [64] | Intrapatient comparison | 60 | Toenail onychomycosis | LADD + ALA-PDT vs. LADD + Amorolfine | AFXL CO2 | Pain; scores 2.1–8.5/10 | - |
| Bhatta 2016 [65] | Prospective, nil comparison | 75 | Onychomycosis | LADD + 1% terbinafine | AFXL CO2 | Pain; mean 1.93/10 | Nil bleeding, oozing, bacterial infection, contact dermatitis |
| Rajbanshi 2020 [66] | Prospective, dual arm | 80 | Onychomycosis | LADD + Terbinafine vs. Terbinafine | AFXL CO2 | Pain (mean = 3.5/10) | Nil bleeding, infection Nil dermatitis, oozing. Nil observed medication cross-reaction |
Table 8.
Miscellaneous medical.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agamia 2022 [67] | Intrapatient comparison | 30 | Palmar hyperhidrosis | LADD + BTX-A vs. Intradermal BTX-A | AFXL CO2 | Pain | - |
| Johnson 2022 [68] | Retrospective review | 33 | Misc medical & cosmetic | LADD + Serum (15% Vitamin C, 1% Vitamin E, and 0.5% Ferulic acid) | AFXL CO2 | Erythema (n = 6), Erythema+tenderness (n = 1), Erythema+mild bumpiness (n = 1), Skin peeling (n = 1), Pain+bleeding (n = 1) | All side effects resolved |
| Wang 2022 [69] | Retrospective review | 94 | Misc medical & cosmetic | LADD poly-l-lactic acid | AFXL CO2 | - | Nil documented adverse effects. Nil filler nodules, delayed wound healing, prolonged erythema, and abnormal scarring |
| Bauer 2021 [70] | Intrapatient comparison | 8 | Chronic plaque-type psoriasis | LADD + Etanercept vs. Etanercept vs. AFXL alone | AFXL Er:YAG | Itching, redness, pain, ulceration * | Nil clinically significant deviation in lab results (chemistry, haematology, lipid panels) |
| Elazim 2021 [71] | Intrapatient comparison | 32 | Nail psoriasis | LADD + 0.1% Tazarotene vs. 0.1% Tazarotene | AFXL CO2 | Mild-moderate pain (all, transient), Bleeding (n = 2) Periungual erythema (n = 2) | - |
| Helmy 2021 [72] | Prospective trial | 11 | Plaque psoriasis | LADD + Cyclosporine vs. Clobetasol | AFXL CO2 | Mild burning and stinging (n = 2, < 48 h) | - |
| Sun 2021 [73] | Single arm prospective | 30 | Infantile hemangioma | LADD + Timolol | AFXL Er Yag | Detectable timolol systemically, 1.580–14.718 pg/mL in 8/20 patients. Erythema, oedema, blisters | Nil bradycardia, hypotension, hypoglycaemia, liver and kidney dysfunction, dyspnoea, lethargy, sweating in all subjects. Nil pigmentation, hypopigmentation, scars |
| Junsuwan 2020 [74] | Intrapatient comparison (palm vs. palm) | 3 | Palmar hyperhidrosis | LADD + BTX-A vs. nil treatment | AFXL | Pain–scale: 4-6/10 | Nil pigmentation, textural changes. Nil change in hand dexterity, strength. |
| Shehadeh 2020 [75] | Intrapatient comparison | 22 | Nail Psoriasis | LADD + Betamethasone-Calcipotriol gel | Proximal and lateral nail folds–595nm PDL, Nail–AFXL CO2 | Pain, Participants withdrew due to pain (n = 3) Local irritation/pain (<hours) erythema, purpura (<days) | - |
| Sobhi 2018 [76] | Intrapatient comparison (split-lesion) | 10 | Macular amyloidosis | AFXL vs. LADD + Topical Corticosteroid vs. LADD + Topical Corticosteroid + Vitamin C | AFXL CO2 | Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (n = 1) | - |
| Lee 2017 [4] | Retrospective cohort | 6 | Cicatricial ectropion | LADD 5-FU | Various AFXL | - | No adverse effects other than AFXL-related |
| Park 2016 [77] | Prospective single arm | 11 | Common warts (paediatric patients) | LADD + Imiquimod | AFXL Er:YAG | Transient scabbing (n = 10), Erythema (n = 6), Pruritus (n = 4), (All adverse effects resolving in several days) | Nil serious adverse events necessitating additional treatment |
| Ma 2014 [78] | Prospective single arm | 9 | Infantile hemangiomas | LADD + Timolol | AFXL CO2 | Pinpoint bleeding, fluid exudation (<1 day), Erythema, oedema (2–3 days), Dot crusting (5–7 days) | Nil detectable plasma timolol post-procedure. Nil significant change in HR, BP, BSL |
| Veremis-Ley 2006 [79] | Intrapatient comparison | 14 | For patch-testing | LADD + Patch Tests vs. Laser only vs. Patch Tests only | AFXL Er:YAG | Pruritus to positive- reaction sites, Crust and transient skin darkening (skin types IV, V)/lightening in skin types II, III (<10 days), TEWL increase (<48 h) | Nil reported side effects by patients, pain at laser-treated sites |
* Several adverse events were classified as unrelated to trial: influenza, contact dermatitis on the neck, gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal cramps, headache, constipation, arterial hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, bleeding at laser application site, common cold.
Table 9.
Cosmetic.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benzaquen 2021 [80] | Intrapatient comparison | 20 | Heloderma stigmas | LADD + Hyaluronic acid vs. LADD Saline | AFXL | Erythema, oedema, crust | Nil granuloma formation at 8 months F/U |
| Machado 2020 [81] | RCT | 149 | Periorbital wrinkles | LADD + Vitamin C vs. LADD + Vitamin C+ Growth Factors | AFXL Er:YAG | Nil reported | Nil adverse reaction locally or systemically |
| Widianingsih 2019 [82] | Intrapatient comparison | 9 | Phoaging | LADD Amniotic Membrane Stem Cell vs. Laser + Saline | AFXL Er:YAG | Erythema (all, <2 weeks), Mild pain (n = 7), Acneiform eruption (n = 2), Crusting | Nil post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation |
| Elsaie 2009 [83] | Intrapatient comparison | 3 | Tattoo removal | LADD Imiquimod vs. Laser + Vehicle cream | Nd:YAG | Moderate pain Pruritus (n = 1) | Nil pruritus, pain, burning, scarring, ulceration, pigmentary alterations, or vascular changes |
| Ricotti 2007 [84] | Intrapatient comparison | 20 | Tattoo removal | LADD Imiquimod vs. Laser + Placebo Cream | Q-switched Nd:YAG, frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser, Q-switched alexandrite | Pruritus (60%) Erythema (55%) Scale (40%) Burning (35%), Erosions (30%), Poor healing of biopsy site (20%) Urticaria (10%) 1 subject-recurrent and generalized urticarial reaction with facial angioedema | - |
Table 10.
Non-therapeutic experiment.
| Author | Patient Cohorts | Number of LADD Recipients | Condition | Intervention | Laser | Adverse Events | Relevant Negative Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banzhaf 2016 [85] | Intrapatient comparison | 11 | Healthy skin | AFXL + Fluorescein | AFXL CO2 | Transient oedema, erythema, micro-crusting | - |
| Oni 2013 [86] | Prospective, dual arm | 10 | To study LADD anaesthetic safety | LADD (Full ablative Er:YAG) vs. LADD (AFXL CO2) Delivery of 20% benzocaine, 6% lidocaine, and 4% tetracaine cream | Er:YAG and AFXL CO2 | Post-treatment hyperpigmentation (n = 1, <1 mo), rx w hydroxychloroquine cream) Pain | For all patients in all groups, serum lidocaine and MEGX did not reach toxic levels, maximum was 0.935 μg/mL. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ng, W.H.S.; Smith, S.D. Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14122738
AMA Style
Ng WHS, Smith SD. Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events. Pharmaceutics. 2022; 14(12):2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14122738
Chicago/Turabian StyleNg, William Hao Syuen, and Saxon D. Smith. 2022. "Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events" Pharmaceutics 14, no. 12: 2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14122738
APA StyleNg, W. H. S., & Smith, S. D. (2022). Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery: A Systematic Review of Safety and Adverse Events. Pharmaceutics, 14(12), 2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14122738
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
