Comparing the efficacy and safety of laser treatments in tattoo removal: A systematic review.
Q-switched
ablative
laser(s)
picosecond
tattoo color
tattoo pigment
tattoo(s)
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
ISSN: 1097-6787
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7907132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
11
04
2020
revised:
09
07
2020
accepted:
18
07
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
9
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although lasers have been the criterion standard for tattoo removal, selecting the best modality can be challenging because of the varying efficacies and adverse effects. To evaluate all lasers used to remove tattoos and assess their efficacies and adverse effects. Our systematic review searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all laser treatments. The outcomes measured included laser parameters, treatment methods, patient and tattoo characteristics, clearance rate, and adverse effect rate. The quality of the included articles was appraised by using specific assessment tools and given a high, moderate, or low risk of bias. Our search led to 3037 studies, with 36 being included in the systematic review (7 randomized controlled trials, 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, and 27 case series). Although quality-switched neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers are safe and effective, picosecond lasers have shown superiority with blue, green, and yellow tattoo pigments. Both are safe and effective for black tattoos. Variability among studies. Picosecond lasers show superiority when treating blue, green, and yellow tattoos. The R20 and R0 novel techniques can effectively reduce treatment time. Further randomized controlled trials are required to make a more definitive recommendation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although lasers have been the criterion standard for tattoo removal, selecting the best modality can be challenging because of the varying efficacies and adverse effects.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate all lasers used to remove tattoos and assess their efficacies and adverse effects.
METHODS
Our systematic review searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for all laser treatments. The outcomes measured included laser parameters, treatment methods, patient and tattoo characteristics, clearance rate, and adverse effect rate. The quality of the included articles was appraised by using specific assessment tools and given a high, moderate, or low risk of bias.
RESULTS
Our search led to 3037 studies, with 36 being included in the systematic review (7 randomized controlled trials, 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, and 27 case series). Although quality-switched neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers are safe and effective, picosecond lasers have shown superiority with blue, green, and yellow tattoo pigments. Both are safe and effective for black tattoos.
LIMITATIONS
Variability among studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Picosecond lasers show superiority when treating blue, green, and yellow tattoos. The R20 and R0 novel techniques can effectively reduce treatment time. Further randomized controlled trials are required to make a more definitive recommendation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32763326
pii: S0190-9622(20)32349-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.117
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103-109Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.