Various lasers have been used for the treatment of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), facial erythema (FE), and facial telangiectasias (FT). The assessment of the treatments of all of these conditions with a 577-nm pro-yellow laser has not been reported yet. The aim of this work was to assess the efficacy and safety of the 577-nm pro-yellow laser in ETR, FE, and FT. Forty patients suffering from ETR, FE, and FT (25 female and 15 male) were enrolled in this study. All of the patients were treated with 577-nm pro-yellow laser (QuadroStarPRO YELLOW® Asclepion Laser Technologies, Germany) at 4-week intervals, for one to four sessions. The assessment of the treatment was made based on the digital photographs and the percentage of fading of the erythema and telangiectasias in the lesions. Significant clinical improvement (80–100%) was observed in the first or second sessions of the treatment in FE and ETR patients and in second and fourth sessions of the treatment in FT patients. The treatment was very well tolerated. No side effect was observed except for a few patients who had mild to moderate erythema fading away in 12–24 h. This case series has shown that the pro-yellow laser is a very effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for ETR, FE, and FT.
Treatment of rosacea Laser treatment Pro-yellow laser Facial erythema
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study has been conducted retrospectively. All procedures performed in this study on human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration, and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all the patients included in the study.
McCoy SE (1997) Copper bromide laser treatment of facial telangiectasia: results of patients treated over five years. Lasers Surg Med 21(4):329–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Owen WR, Hoppe E (2012) Copper bromide laser for facial telangiectasia: a dose response evaluation. Australas J Dermatol 53(4):281–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Alam M, Voravutinon N, Warycha M, Whiting D, Nodzenski M, Yoo S, West DP, Veledar E, Poon E (2013) Comparative effectiveness of nonpurpuragenic 595-nm pulsed dye laser and microsecond 1064-nm neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser for treatment of diffuse facial erythema: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 69(3):438–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Thibault PK (1997) A patient’s questionnaire evaluation of krypton laser treatment of facial telangiectases. A comparison with the copper vapor laser. Dermatol Surg 23(1):37–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Clark SM, Lanigan SW, Marks R (2002) Laser treatment of erythema and telangiectasia associated with rosacea. Lasers Med Sci 17:26–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lee S, Lee T, Kim H, Kim J, Eun H, Kim R (2013) A practical comparison of Copper Bromide Laser for the treatment of vascular lesions. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013:3765–3768PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gao L, Gao N, Song W, Dang E, Yin R, Wang L, Wang G (2017) A Retrospective Study on Efficacy of Pulsed Dye Laser and Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Facial Telangiectasia. J Drugs Dermatol 16(11):1112–1116PubMedGoogle Scholar