Background: The need for a rapid, noninvasive method for unwanted hair removal has led to the development of various light sources for this purpose. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light Source (IPLS) on unwanted hairs. Patients & Methods: In this open, uncontrolled clinical trial, 77 different anatomical areas in 34 referred patients to "Novin Didegan Clinic" in Tehran in 1380-1381, were treated by IPLS at fluencies ranging from 22 to 34 j/cm2 after their demographic data and the number of hairs were recorded. The 3 to 7 treatment sessions were accomplished 4 to 6 weeks apart. All of the patients were followed 6 months after the last therapy. The quantitative data were  analyzed by paired t test. Results: Six months after the last therapy, more than 50% reduction in number of hairs was noted in 80% of the treated areas; with mean reduction of 72±23 percent. Side effects were mild and reversible and occurred in ten patients. Conclusion: The IPLS appears to provide an effective and safe method for long term excess hair removal in various skin types.      

Background: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a common parasitic disorder that is endemic in many countries. There is no completely effective treatment for this condition, but pentavalent antimony compounds are regarded as the main treatment. Different laser types have been used for treatment of CL with variable success but to our best knowledge, there is no published paper regarding use of intense pulsed light (IPL) for treatment of CL. Materials and Methods: In this randomized, single-blind clinical trial study, we compared the efficacy of intralesional glucantime alone versus intralesional glucantime plus weekly IPL for treatment of 54 patients with confirmed cutaneous leishmaniasis for a maximum of eight weeks as a randomized, clinical trial. Results: Although it was not statistically significant, combination treatment was more effective than intralesional glucantime alone (P > 0. 05). However, the velocity of healing was significantly higher in the IPL plus intralesional glucantime alone versus glucantime alone. No side effect was observed in both groups. Discussion: To better evaluate the efficacy of IPL, more studies with a higher number of patients and using various IPL filters are recommended.

Background: Acne vulgaris (AV) is one of the most common skin diseases with major psychological impacts. Hence, selecting the best treatment modality is so important; there are different ways to treat AV such as topical and systemic agents, laser, and also photodynamic therapy. In this study, we tried to assess the difference between the efficacy of combination therapy with intense pulsed light (IPL) and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) in comparison with IPL and adapalene (AD) in the treatment of the mild to moderate AV. Materials and Methods: Thirty Iranian females in reproductive age with mild to moderate acne were enrolled in this study. The left and right side of the patients were randomized to receive either AD 0. 1% or BPO 5% every other day plus three sessions of monthly apart IPL in the treatment of AV. Different parameters of AV such as acne severity index (ASI), total acne lesions counting (TLC), and Acne Global Severity Scale (AGSS) were measured before, during, and after the treatments. Results: There was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with AD plus IPL (P < 0. 001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI before and after treatment with BP plus IPL (P < 0. 001). However, no significant difference regarding AGSS, TLC, and ASI were observed between the 2 groups after treatment (P > 0. 05). No significant side effects were observed in both groups. Conclusion: Our study shows that there was not any significant difference between combining IPL with either AD or BPO so we can use either one of these combinations to achieve similar efficacy.

Introduction: Intense pulsed light (IPL) has long been used for skin rejuvenation.Photo rejuvenation with red light (with or without photo sensitizer) is a newer noninvasive way for this purpose; but, until now few comparative studies between these modalities have been performed. The aim of this study was comparing efficacy, adverse effects, and compliance of intense pulsed light rejuvenation and red light photo rejuvenation in a homogeneous group of women.Methods: In this clinical trial, ten female volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin type I, II, and III were enrolled. Patients underwent 6 sessions of IPL rejuvenation at 4-week intervals on one side, and 30 photo rejuvenation session (2 times a week) with red light on the other side of their face. Improvement of the skin texture and reduction in the wrinkles were determined in two ways. Firstly, by comparing the photographs, and secondly, by measuring the skin elasticity with Reviscometer MPA 9 system, before and after the procedure.Results: Both treatments were associated with improvement in the skin texture and wrinkle depth, but red light was more effective on the nasolabial fold and IPL was more effective on the fine wrinkles.Conclusions: Red light photo rejuvenation without the use of photosensitizer can be a new, effective and safe procedure for rejuvenation.

Angioma serpiginosum (AS) is a nevoid capillary malformation developed congenitally or thereafter. The AS stops growing after puberty and may remain persistent throughout life. The pulsed dye laser (PDL) and KTP are used to treat the AS usually after several sessions. We treated a patient with AS with only one session of intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy. A 40-year-old lady with Fitzpatrick skin type 3 and AS on the left maxillary and infraorbital area was scheduled to be treated with IPL. The lesion was treated by a single pass of IPL therapy with 8 joules/ cm2, in the telangiectatic mode. No anesthesia more than cooling was used, and a mild erythema was developed immediately after IPL therapy, which subsided soon after the procedure. Two months later, telangiectatic lagoons were completely removed, and only very faint erythema remained. IPL is an effective and more tolerable device for the treatment of AS, with no purpura and discoloration, as frequently observed following PDL therapy.

Background: Results of various studies suggest that the hypertrophic and keloid scars are highly prevalent in the general population and are irritating both physically and mentally.Objective: Considering the variety of existing therapies, intense pulsed light (IPL) method along with corticosteroid injection was evaluated in treating these scars.Materials and Methods: 86 subjects were included in this clinical trial. Eight sessions of therapeutic intervention were done with IPL along with corticosteroid intralesional injection using 450 to 1200 NM filter, Fluence 30-40 J/cm2, pulse duration of 2.1-10 ms and palsed delay 10-40 ms with an interval of three weeks. To specify the recovery consequences and complication rate and to determine features of the lesion, the criteria specified in the study of Eroll and Vancouver scar scale were used.Results: The level of clinical improvement, color improvement and scar height was 89.1%, 88.8% and 89.1% respectively. The incidence of complications (1 telangiectasia case, 7 hyperpigmentation cases and 2 atrophy cases) following treatment with IPL was 11.6%. Moreover, the participants’ satisfaction with IPL method was 88.8%.Conclusions: This study revealed that a combined therapy (intralesional corticosteroid injection+IPL) increases the recovery level of hypertrophic and keloid scars. It was also demonstrated that this method had no significant side effect and patients were highly satisfied with this method.