Ipl Laser For Ocular Rosacea
Intense pulsed light (IPL) laser therapy is a treatment option for ocular rosacea. A little hand piece is used to deliver the light to the skin, and is kept against the skin for 30 seconds. Results can be seen right away, and they’ll keep getting better over the next few days as new collagen grows beneath the skin.
Nose and cheeks, among other facial features, may benefit from ipl laser treatment for ocular rosacea. If you have redness anywhere else on your body, you can use it there as well. Taking into account the foregoing, IPL stands out as a promising method for treating ocular rosacea. Redness and other skin disorders can be effectively addressed. The buildup of secretions that contribute to conditions including blepharitis, meibomitis, and dry eye is also addressed.
Inflammation is reduced or eliminated with laser therapy for a variety of eye disorders. Ocular rosacea has been successfully treated with lasers by several medical professionals. Here are some helpful hints for comprehending the benefits of laser therapy and what you need to do before beginning treatment. Read on to learn more on ipl dry eye treatment reviews and ocular rosacea treatment.
Ipl Laser For Ocular Rosacea
Dry eye disease is a common condition causing ocular discomfort, reduced visual acuity and impaired quality of life. Meibomian gland dysfunction is the most common cause of dry eye disease: Abnormal meibum obstructs meibomian glands and causes altered tear film, which can result in eye irritation, ocular surface disease, inflammation and bacterial overgrowth.
“When meibomian gland dysfunction is treated early, there is potential for the return of gland function. However, many of the current therapies only treat the symptoms of dry eye disease rather than addressing the underlying pathophysiology of meibomian gland dysfunction,” says Joanne F. Shen, M.D., chair of Ophthalmology at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix/Scottsdale, Arizona.
Treatment with intense pulsed light
Dharmendra (Dave) R. Patel, M.D., an ophthalmologist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix/Scottsdale, Arizona, treats a patient with intense pulsed light.
Meibomian gland expression (MGX) is a relatively inexpensive and readily available treatment option that requires minimal equipment and has proved efficacious in patients with dry eye related to meibomian gland dysfunction. However, it is often painful and requires frequent treatment sessions. Intense pulsed light (IPL) combined with MGX is a recognized treatment for ocular rosacea and meibomian gland disease with dry eye symptoms, but “despite the growing acceptance of IPL in ophthalmology, the mechanism by which it improves dry eye symptoms is not fully understood and the treatment is not widely available,” says Dr. Shen.
Dr. Shen and fellow researchers investigated the efficacy and mechanism of IPL in ocular rosacea with dry eye symptoms by evaluating symptoms and signs and analyzing tear film transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) and ocular microbiome changes in patients receiving IPL with MGX compared with MGX alone. Results were published in Clinical Ophthalmology in 2021.
For this pilot study, 20 patients with a greater than one-year history of ocular rosacea with meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye disease were recruited from November 2017 through September 2018 and randomly assigned to receive either IPL-MGX or MGX. Patients were examined, treated and administered the Ocular Surface Disease Index survey every 4 to 6 weeks for four total treatments. Tear film and conjunctival samples were collected at first and last visits and analyzed for TGF-β concentration and 16s rRNA amplicon sequencing of ocular microbiome.
Ocular Surface Disease Index survey results
Mean baseline Ocular Surface Disease Index scoring was equivalent between the IPL-MGX and the MGX treatment groups (55.7 versus 43.5, P = 0.212). By the fourth visit, scores were significantly improved from baseline in the IPL-MGX treatment group compared with the group that received MGX alone (P = 0.030).
The number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretions increased from baseline to visit 4 in both groups. The increase was greater in the IPL-MGX group, though not different enough to achieve statistical significance in this small cohort.
Dermatology literature has reported elevation in TGF-β1 in patients with back acne treated with IPL, so an association was investigated in the patients with ocular rosacea. However, there was no significant difference in mean TGF-β1, TGF-β2 or TGF-β3 concentration after IPL-MGX (P = 0.385, 0.709 and 0.948, respectively). Ocular microbiome was examined, but though quantities of clostridium, klebsiella, brevibacterium, lactobacillus, neisseria, streptococcus, corynebacterium, butyricicoccus and actinomyces were significantly reduced from baseline in both groups, there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups.
Dr. Shen concludes: “Refractory dry eye symptoms can be extremely debilitating. There is an array of treatments offered to patients with dry eye, many of which are not covered by insurance and lack any guarantee of improvement. Patients who have ocular rosacea and respond to doxycycline but are intolerant to this systemic treatment are good candidates for this out-of-pocket cost treatment. Patients with refractory red eyes from ocular rosacea also have responded well. Understanding the mechanism of IPL on dry eye from ocular rosacea will both enable providers to identify other patients as good candidates based on their individual traits and open the door to investigating additional therapeutic interventions.”
Ipl Dry Eye Treatment Reviews
Dry eye was once thought to be nothing more than an irritating temporary discomfort of the eyes. Usually dismissed as tiredness, reading for too long, or an expected symptom accompanying the itch of hayfever allergies. Years later, the eye care profession now recognises dry eye as an actual disease. With potential for significant impact on an individual’s quality of life. Dry eye technology has evolved from instilling saline drops to the revolutionary IPL for dry eye treatment.
Dry Eye Disease
Often quoted with a global prevalence of up to 50%. This number may be even higher due to a large degree of underdiagnosis of what seems like an innocuous condition. The severity of dry eye symptoms varies from person to person. Some individuals may not even realise the symptoms they experience are in fact due to dry eye. Some cases may be quite obvious and are easy to self-diagnose. Other patients may need proper examination by an optometrist or ophthalmologist to discover the underlying cause of their red, irritated eyes. You may be suffering from dry eye disease if you experience any of the following symptoms. Particularly, if they are frequent and recurrent:
- A dry sensation of the eyes
- Gritty, burning, stinging, or foreign body sensation in the eyes
- Variable vision that fluctuates particularly between blinking
- Tired eyes even if the rest of your body doesn’t feel physically tired
Through research, eye care practitioners are recognising that the severity of symptoms that a patient reports does not always correlate to the signs of dry eye a clinician may observe in an examination. This works both ways. With a patient reporting very severe, debilitating dry eye symptoms but a clinical exam noting very few signs of dryness, and vice versa. Certain conditions worsen with dry eye symptoms. Prolonged reading or computer work, or dry, air-conditioned environments contribute to this. Systemic diseases, such as autoimmune diseases, and certain medications, including antidepressants and antihistamines, can also worsen dry eye symptoms. There are two basic categories of dry eye disease. Separated by their broad underlying causes. Meibomian gland dysfunction and aqueous deficiency dry eye. Some cases of dry eye may be a combination of both Meibomian gland dysfunction and aqueous deficiency. The vast majority will have a Meibomian gland dysfunction component. Treatment is most effective when tailored to each patient since many factors contribute to each case.
Importance Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common skin disorder of follicular prominence and erythema that typically affects the proximal extremities, can be disfiguring, and is often resistant to treatment. Shorter-wavelength vascular lasers have been used to reduce the associated erythema but not the textural irregularity.
Objective To determine whether the longer-wavelength 810-nm diode laser may be effective for treatment of KP, particularly the associated skin roughness/bumpiness and textural irregularity.
Design, Setting, and Participants We performed a split-body, rater-blinded, parallel-group, balanced (1:1), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial at a dermatology outpatient practice of an urban academic medical center from March 1 to October 1, 2011. We included all patients diagnosed as having KP on both arms and Fitzpatrick skin types I through III. Of the 26 patients who underwent screening, 23 met our enrollment criteria. Of these, 18 patients completed the study, 3 were lost to or unavailable for follow-up, and 2 withdrew owing to inflammatory hyperpigmentation after the laser treatment.
Interventions Patients were randomized to receive laser treatment on the right or left arm. Each patient received treatment with the 810-nm pulsed diode laser to the arm randomized to be the treatment site. Treatments were repeated twice, for a total of 3 treatment visits spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was the difference in disease severity score, including redness and roughness/bumpiness, with each graded on a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe), between the treated and control sites. Two blinded dermatologists rated the sites at 12 weeks after the initial visit.
Results At follow-up, the median redness score reported by the 2 blinded raters for the treatment and control sides was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2; P = .11). The median roughness/bumpiness score was 1.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the treatment sides and 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .004). The median overall score combining erythema and roughness/bumpiness was 3.0 (IQR, 2-4) for the treatment sides and 4.0 (IQR, 3-5) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .005).
Conclusions and Relevance Three treatments with the 810-nm diode laser may induce significant improvements in skin texture and roughness/bumpiness in KP patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I through III, but baseline erythema is not improved. Complete treatment of erythema and texture in KP may require diode laser treatment combined with other laser or medical modalities that address redness.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01281644
Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a common hereditary, benign disorder of unknown etiology1 that is frequently seen in conjunction with atopy. The hereditary pattern of this skin disorder is thought to be autosomal dominant without a known predisposition based on race or sex.2 Keratinaceous plugging of follicles results in markedly visible papules, often involving the lateral and extensor aspects of the proximal extremities but sometimes also the face, buttocks, and trunk.3 Perifollicular erythema is routinely notable.4 Topical treatments for KP include emollients, exfoliants, and anti-inflammatory agents, such as urea, salicylic acid, lactic acid, topical corticosteroids, topical retinoids, and cholecalciferol. Because most patients obtain limited benefit from these treatments, less conventional treatments, including phototherapy and lasers, have been explored. Among lasers, the 532-, 585-, and 595-nm vascular devices have been used with modest success, particularly in reducing redness.5–8 Longer-wavelength lasers have not been studied for the treatment of KP, and lasers have not been shown to be successful for treating the textural components of KP. Our study investigates the effectiveness of the longer-wavelength 810-nm diode laser for color and texture of upper extremity KP.
We performed a split-body, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1 and a block size of 2 at an urban academic medical center. The unit of randomization was the individual unilateral upper extremity. The study was approved by the institutional review board of Northwestern University. All participants provided written informed consent.
Patients were recruited from a dermatology practice at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, and the surrounding community. Inclusion criteria consisted of age 18 to 65 years, good health, Fitzpatrick skin types I to III, and a diagnosis of KP on both upper extremities. We excluded patients who had received any laser therapy to the arms in the 12 months before recruitment, with a concurrent diagnosis of another skin condition or malignant neoplasm, with a tan or sunburn over the upper arms in the month before recruitment, with open ulcers or infections at any skin site, or who were using topical or oral photosensitizing medications.
When potential participants called or e-mailed the clinic for possible inclusion in the study, they underwent prescreening (performed by O.I.) over the telephone using the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Once enrollment criteria were met, patients were scheduled for a total of 4 visits, 4 to 5 weeks apart, in the Department of Dermatology, Feinberg School of Medicine.
On the patient’s first visit, one of us (O.I.) reviewed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the patients provided written informed consent, they separately rated redness and roughness/bumpiness on each arm using a scale of 0 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) for a total maximum score of 6 per patient per arm. Next, patients were randomized into 2 groups as described below, and baseline standardized digital photographs were obtained. Each patient received treatment using the 810-nm pulsed diode laser to the arm randomized to be the treatment site. After laser treatment, both sides were treated with topical petrolatum. Treatments were repeated twice for a total of 3 treatment visits, with visits spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart. At the fourth and final visit, 12 to 15 weeks after the initial visit, the patients again rated disease severity as previously described. At this last visit, 2 blinded dermatologists (S.Y. and M.A.) also rated the roughness/bumpiness and redness of the treatment and control arms separately using the same scales, and digital photographs were again obtained.
Patient screening and enrollment were performed by one of us (M.D.), as were random sequence generation and concealment (R.K.), which were conducted by coin toss of the same fair coin, with the outcomes (1 or 2) recorded separately on individual paper cards then placed in sealed, opaque, consecutively numbered envelopes. Each patient was assigned to one of 2 groups (by W.D.). Patients in group 1 were designated to receive laser therapy on the right arm, and those in group 2 were assigned to receive laser therapy on the left arm. All study treatments were delivered by the same clinician (D.B.).
All study treatments used the 810-nm pulsed diode laser. A lidocaine and prilocaine–based cream was applied to the arms 30 to 60 minutes before treatment and washed off before treatment. Laser therapy was performed on the treatment side at a fluence of 45 to 60 J/cm2 (to convert to gray, multiply by 1) (depending on Fitzpatrick skin type) and a pulse duration of 30 to 100 milliseconds, with precise settings selected to be just below the patient’s threshold for purpura. Each treatment session entailed 2 nonoverlapping passes separated by a 1-minute delay. The patient was then instructed to minimize sun exposure and apply sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 50 to the treatment area daily until the next visit.
The primary outcome measure was the difference in disease severity score, including redness and roughness/bumpiness, between the treated site and the control site as rated by the blinded dermatologists at 12 weeks after the initial visit. This scale was not validated because no relevant validated scale was available. However, raters were trained on the use of the study scale, and before the review of study images, they were asked to rate archival skin images on the same 4-point qualitative subscales used in the study. Raters reviewed and rated archival images separately and then reconciled their ratings through face-to-face forced agreement, with the process repeated until concordance was achieved between raters and their separately rated scores were consistently equivalent.
During the evaluation of study data, forced agreement was used to reconcile blinded ratings. The secondary outcome measure was the change from baseline in disease severity of each arm as rated by the patients.
Power Analysis and Sample Size
Assuming an SD of change of 0.84, a sample of 20 patients had 80% power to detect median differences (or median changes) in severity scores of 0.5. We assumed a 2-sided test and type I error rate of 5%.
We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare the magnitude of change from baseline between treatment and control for all patient ratings (redness, roughness/bumpiness, and overall score). Blinded dermatologists’ ratings of the treatment and control sides were also compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Patient Baseline Demographic Characteristics
The study was conducted during a 7-month period from March 1 to October 1, 2011. A total of 26 patients underwent screening for our study, and 23 of those patients (46 arms) met our criteria and were enrolled in the study. Of these 23 patients, 18 (36 arms) completed the study and underwent analysis, 3 were lost to or unavailable for follow-up, and 2 voluntarily withdrew owing to inflammatory hyperpigmentation after the laser treatment. The demographic characteristics of our patients are presented in the Table. At baseline, patients rated the severity of the roughness/bumpiness in the texture of their arm test sites at a median score of 1.5 (interquarile range [IQR], 1-2) and the severity of the erythema of their arm test sites at a median score of 2.0 (IQR, 1-2). (The maximum score for both ratings was 3.0.)
At follow-up, the median redness score assigned by the blinded raters for the treatment and control sides was 2.0 (IQR, 1-2), a null difference (Figure 1). The median roughness/bumpiness score was 1.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the treatment sides and 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .004) (Figure 1). The median overall score combining erythema and roughness/bumpiness was 3.0 (IQR, 2-4) for the treatment sides and 4.0 (IQR, 3-5) for the control sides, a difference of 1 (P = .005) (Figure 1).
Patient Self-assessment Scores
At follow-up, patients’ self-reported median erythema rating for the control sides did not change from the baseline score of 2.0 (IQR, 1-2), but the self-reported median erythema score for the treatment side decreased from 2.0 to 1.5 (IQR, 1-2), a nominal difference that was not statistically significant (P = .13) (Figure 2). The median roughness/bumpiness score for the control sides increased from 1.5 to 2.0 (IQR, 1-2) and for the treatment sides decreased from 1.5 to 1.0 (IQR, 1-2). The 1-point decrease in roughness/bumpiness in the treatment arm compared with the control arm was significant (P = .008) (Figure 2). The overall score (erythema and roughness/bumpiness) for the control sides increased from 3.5 to 4.0 (IQR, 3-4), and for the treatment arm decreased from 3.5 to 2.5 (IQR, 2-4), with the cumulative difference of 1.5 points being significant (P = .005) (Figure 2).
We found no unexpected adverse events associated with laser treatment. Two participants developed inflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser treatment and chose to withdraw from the study. These patients were instructed to continue sun-protective measures to their affected extremities, and in both cases hyperpigmentation completely resolved within 3 months.
We investigated the effectiveness of the 810-nm diode laser in the treatment of KP. After 3 treatments spaced 4 to 5 weeks apart, blinded dermatologist ratings and patient self-report indicated significant improvements in skin texture and roughness/bumpiness when compared with baseline However, neither raters nor patients detected a significant change in erythema.
Most topical treatments for KP, including emollients, corticosteroids, and retinoids, are of limited effectiveness.9 Light-based treatments have typically entailed use of vascular lasers, like the application of a 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate laser to treat a case of resistant facial KP by Dawn et al.5 Repeated treatments resulted in a marked improvement in erythema and some clearance of papules. A study of 12 patients using the 585-nm pulsed-dye laser6 found improvement in erythema but not in roughness/bumpiness. A similar report7 described a case in which multiple treatments with a 595-nm pulsed-dye laser induced marked improvements in facial erythema, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. A study of 10 patients treated with a 595-nm pulsed-dye laser8 confirmed these results.
To our knowledge, our study is the first of its kind to investigate the use of a longer-wavelength laser, the diode laser, in the treatment of KP. More important, our results are the first from a clinical trial that demonstrate the effectiveness of laser treatment of the textural abnormality and roughness/bumpiness associated with KP. The data from our investigation suggest that the 810-nm diode laser is a particularly promising and effective treatment for the nonerythematous variants of KP. The variant of KP known as keratosis pilaris alba, which presents mostly as follicular papules, may be highly responsive to this laser modality.10 The variant that includes perifollicular erythema with follicular papules, keratosis pilaris rubra,9,10 may best respond to joint treatment with diode and vascular lasers, with the former improving texture and the latter addressing erythema.
We have theoretical reasons for selecting the 810-nm diode laser and the settings used in this study. Specifically, KP is an inflammatory condition of vellus hair follicles. Compared with terminal hair, vellus hair is relatively deficient in melanin (ie, has less chromophore) and smaller in diameter (ie, has shorter thermal relaxation time). Based on the theory of selective photothermolysis, these features would be consistent with a thermal relaxation time of approximately 50 milliseconds, which means that a pulse duration of less than 50 milliseconds, such as the 30 milliseconds used in this study, would be appropriate for treatment. Because of a substantial lack of chromophore, the fluence required for photothermal destruction of a vellus hair follicle is 40 to 45 J/cm2, greater than that for a terminal hair. Ideally a highly absorbing wavelength such as 695 nm would be the best to treat vellus follicles, but this wavelength is absorbed by epidermal pigment in darker skinned individuals before it can reach deeper targets, such as the stem cells in the bulge region of the follicles. Similarly, 1064 nm is not highly selective for melanin, and we know that the vellus follicle has little melanin to begin with. As a consequence, the 810-nm wavelength appears to be the best choice because its depth of penetration is sufficient, it has selectivity for melanin, and it is compatible with a pulse duration of 30 milliseconds.
In terms of adverse events, our study found that treatment with the 810-nm diode laser was safe and not associated with any serious or unexpected adverse events. Although 2 patients (9%) developed bothersome inflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, resulting in their withdrawal from the study, these sequelae resolved completely in the medium term. Further counseling about the need for sun protection and avoidance of tanning during the period of laser treatment may mitigate the risk for posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation in the future.
A limitation of our study is that enrollment was restricted to participants with Fitzpatrick skin types I to III. The exclusion of darker skin types was not incidental but rather designed to minimize the risk for posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation, which is more common after laser procedures in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI. That posttreatment inflammatory hyperpigmentation was observed in this study despite careful patient selection suggests that this precaution was appropriate. Regardless, patients with darker skin types can indeed be treated safely with the diode laser if gentle settings are used. Once this treatment paradigm is optimized, such broader application will likely be appropriate and feasible. One protective benefit of the current treatment settings was that they were deliberately below the threshold for purpura and thus designed to avoid bruising, which can resolve with tan pigmentation, particularly in darker skin. To the extent that the 810-nm diode laser has hair-removing activity, this treatment may be inappropriate for patients who do not want hair loss at the site of their KP. Finally, although incidental reports from some participants previously in this study have indicated that they have maintained textural benefits for more than a year, it remains to be seen to what extent these improvements are maintained over the longer term. To the extent that laser treatment may significantly modify hair growth in abnormal vellus hair follicles initially induced by genetic predisposition, improvement may be long lasting. This result would then be parallel to the case of traditional hair removal, in which posttreatment long-term remission of coarse terminal hairs and the corresponding pseudofolliculitis is often observed.
However, this study was not designed to assess long-term improvement, and additional studies would need to be performed to systematically measure the duration and likelihood of persistent benefits. The present study only provides proof of concept and indicates that improvement of the textural abnormalities associated with KP is possible after treatment with an 810-nm diode laser.
By objective and subjective measures, we found that, among lighter-skinned persons, serial treatment with a long-pulsed 810-nm diode laser at subpurpuric levels provided medium-term improvement in KP, particularly for the associated roughness/bumpiness and textural irregularity. Combined with preexisting data about the utility of vascular lasers for the reduction of KP-associated erythema, this finding suggests that laser treatment may comprehensively address the clinical manifestations of KP in selected patients. Future studies may assess the durability of these responses and the comparative effectiveness of different long-wavelength lasers.
Ocular Rosacea Treatment
doctor may prescribe temporary use of oral antibiotics, such as tetracycline, doxycycline, erythromycin and minocycline. For severe disease, you may need to take an antibiotic for a longer time.
No specific tests or procedures are used for diagnosing ocular rosacea. Instead, your doctor will likely make a diagnosis based on your symptoms, your medical history, and an examination of your eyes and eyelids, and the skin of your face.
Treatment
Ocular rosacea can usually be controlled with medication and home eye care. But these steps don’t cure the condition, which often remains chronic.
Your doctor may prescribe temporary use of oral antibiotics, such as tetracycline, doxycycline, erythromycin and minocycline. For severe disease, you may need to take an antibiotic for a longer time.
Lifestyle and home remedies
You can help manage your ocular rosacea by following a good eye care routine. Keep up this routine even when your condition clears up to help prevent flare-ups. These tips may help.
- Keep your eyelids clean by gently washing them at least twice a day with warm water or a product your doctor recommends.
- Avoid makeup if your eyes are inflamed. When you’re able to wear makeup, choose types that are nonoily (noncomedogenic) and free of fragrance.
- Avoid wearing contact lenses during flare-ups, especially if your symptoms include dry eyes.
- Prevent flare-ups by avoiding things that trigger or worsen your rosacea or ocular rosacea, if possible. Items that tend to dilate blood vessels in the face include hot, spicy foods and alcoholic beverages.
- Use artificial tears to relieve dryness. Ask your doctor for guidance.
Preparing for your appointment
You’re likely to first see your family doctor or primary care provider. You may be referred to an eye specialist, such as an optometrist or an ophthalmologist.
Here’s some information to help you prepare for your appointment.
What you can do
- List any symptoms you’re experiencing, including any that may seem unrelated to the reason for which you scheduled the appointment.
- If you’ve received a diagnosis of rosacea, be prepared to discuss your treatment history.
- List key personal information, including any major stresses or recent life changes.
- Make a list of all medications, vitamins and supplements you’re taking.
- List questions to ask your doctor.
Preparing a list of questions for your doctor can help you make the most of your time together. List your questions from most important to least important. For ocular rosacea, some basic questions to ask your doctor include:
- What is likely causing my symptoms?
- Do I need tests to confirm the diagnosis?
- Is my condition temporary or chronic?
- What is the best course of action?
- What are the alternatives to the primary approach you’re suggesting?
- I have other medical conditions. How can I best manage them together?
- Do I need to follow any restrictions?
- Is there a generic alternative to the medicine you’re prescribing?
Don’t hesitate to ask any other questions that arise during your appointment.
What to expect from your doctor
Your doctor is likely to ask you a number of questions, including:
- When did you begin experiencing symptoms?
- Have your symptoms been continuous or occasional?
- How severe are your symptoms?
- Have you noticed any changes in your skin, such as redness, bumps or flushing?
- Have you noticed any changes in vision?
- What, if anything, seems to improve your symptoms?
- What, if anything, seems to trigger or worsen your symptoms?.
The skin is the largest organ of the body, so it’s no surprise that skin imperfections, blemishes, marks and lesions can happen. Many skin conditions not harmful to your health, but can be a nuisance, unsightly or even embarrassing. Keratosis Pilaris is one such condition, and treating Keratosis Pilaris is simple.
It’s very common and completely harmless but if you suffer with it, can be something of a less than welcome part of your life, due to its sometimes, unattractive appearance. If you have small pimples on the skin that look like permanent goose bumps on areas of the body such as the back of your arms, legs, bottom and even the back, face, eyebrows and scalp, which sometimes get itchy or red, you may have Keratosis Pilaris.
The condition occurs when there is a build-up of a substance called Keratin, a natural protein, which in fact is the main component of the hair as well as healthy skin. This, excess Keratin blocks the openings of the hair follicles, which can cause the small red or white bumps to appear. Keratosis Pilaris also takes the name of “chicken skin” as the skin takes on this appearance. So, no wonder that many people who experience it would like to reduce oreven, eradicate the symptoms.
So, how are we treating Keratosis Pilaris?
Fortunately, at Skin Perfection London, we offer a choice of non-surgical solutions for treating Keratosis Pilaris, painlessly, safely and effectively, from the comfort of our clinic, which is based in the heart of London, between Oxford Street, Harley Street and Bond Street. Treatments can be used alone or combined, for a holistic approach to reducing the chicken skin appearance.
Laser hair removal is a superb way of treating Keratosis Pilaris at its cause. It’s safe, virtually painless and can be permanent! It works by emitting short pulses of light in to the hair follicle, causing it to stop growing hair and to close. This means that it can no longer be blocked by the Keratin and the condition can be drastically improved. The treatment may take up to 9 sessions for optimum results, but can be a long-term solution to this troublesome condition and far better than having to shave, wax or epilate the hair, which can be extremely painful and can exacerbate the symptoms. Laser hair removal is suitable for all skin types and you could see up to 95% permanent reduction in hair growth, so it’s a win-win!
Medical microdermabrasion could be another option. It works by resurfacing the skin and cleaning blocked and congested pores and offers very little downtime or discomfort. At Skin Perfection London, we use the Derma Genesis medical microdermabrasion system, which utilises tiny medical-grade aluminium oxide crystals, which are swept across the skin by a hand-held device. The crystals are then gently sucked back up, bringing with them dirt, debris and dead surface skin cells. This reveals a smoother, clearer and healthier complexion, less prone to becoming congested. Results can be seen after a course of several sessions and your skin expert will explain the treatment programme, along with expected results, at a no obligation consultation, prior to treatment.
Although a harmless condition, Keratosis Pilaris doesn’t have to be endured and at Skin Perfection London, we make it our mission to offer you the most effective, innovative and high-tech device-led treatments to restore smooth, healthy and sexy looking skin, all-year-round.