Pain inhibition in Q‐switched laser tattoo removal with pneumatic skin flattening (PSF): A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tattoo removal with a Q-switched laser is often a painful procedure. The sensation of pain associated with the treatment is immediate and acute. Application of topical anesthesia to the treated area of the skin is time-consuming, with only very moderate pain relief. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of pneumatic skin-flattening (PSF) technology which utilizes an evacuation chamber that generates skin compression and activates tactile neural receptors in the skin, resulting in afferent inhibition of pain transmission in the dorsal horn (the 'gate theory'). METHODS: Eleven young patients aged 17-25 years old (nine females, two males) who were treated for tattoo removal were enrolled in the study. The patients were treated by a Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Acute pain evaluation was performed on all 11 patients: one to two sites per patient with PSF and one to two control sites without PSF. When patients were treated with PSF, they knew they were being treated with a device that might reduce pain. This may have influenced patients' perception of pain. The evaluation was based on a modified McGill pain questionnaire. RESULTS: All 11 patients completed the study. A lower pain score with PSF was observed in all but one patient (10/11 or 91%). The average reduction of pain is by two levels: from very painful to very mild pain. The energy transmission of the PSF window is 95%, resulting in essentially identical efficacy of the PSF treatment and the regular non-PSF treatment. CONCLUSION: This pilot study indicates that PSF technology may reduce pain in tattoo removal with medium energy density Q-switched lasers (3-5 J/cm(2)).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".