A randomized, split-face, double-blind comparison trial between fractionated frequency-doubled 1064/532 nm Picosecond Nd:YAG laser and fractionated 1927 nm thulium fiber laser for facial photorejuvenation

20 subjects were randomly assigned to split-face treatment with PicoWay Resolve (532/1064 nm picosecond lasers) treatment to one side of the face and 1927 nm fractionated thulium fiber laser (TFL) to the contralateral side. Blinded, non‐treating evaluator assessments of photodamage at 6-month follow-up showed statistically significant improvements in photodamaged skin in both treatment groups, but with less downtime associated with Resolve treatments.

Reference:Wu DC, Jones IT, Boen M, Al-Haddad M, Goldman MP. Lasers Surg Med. 2020 Apr 14.

Study Details:

• 20 subjects (19 females), with mean age 56.5 ± 11.6 [range 40-73] years and Fitzpatrick skin type II-V, were randomly assigned to split-face treatment with PicoWay Resolve (532/1064 nm picosecond lasers) treatment to one side of the face and 1927 nm fractionated thulium fiber laser (TFL) to the contralateral side
• 3 monthly treatments: ½ face 2 passes Resolve 1064 nm laser with energy 1.9 - 2.5mJ, followed by 2 passes with Resolve 532 nm with energy 0.54 - 1.2mJ; ½ face TFL with pulse energy of 20mJ, treatment levels 3 - 7, correlating with a 30%-50% density, and 8 passes. Forced air-cooling throughout was used for all treatments.
• Blinded, non‐treating evaluator assessments of photodamage at 6-month follow-up

Study Results:

• Statistically significant improvements were noted in both treatment groups
• Subject 14-day daily diaries showed significantly less downtime (redness, swelling, etc.) associated with Resolve treatments compared to TFL treatments