Novel Management of Rhinophyma by Patterned Ablative 2940nm Erbium:YAG Laser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ashraf Badawi,1,2 Mai Osman,1 Ahmed Kassab1 1Department of Medical Laser Applications, National Institute of Laser Enhanced Sciences, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt; 2Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, HungaryCorrespondence: Ashraf Badawi 2147 Mayflower Boulevard, Oakville, Ontario L6H4E6, CanadaEmail ashrafbadawi@hotmail.comIntroduction: Rhinophyma is a cosmetic disorder that causes emotional distress if the symptoms are extensive or obvious enough. Treatment options range from topical antibiotics or isotretinoin, surgical resection, cryosurgery, electrocautery, dermabrasion and more recently laser therapy. With the limitations of surgical techniques, lasers gained popularity for treating rhinophyma. However, laser ablation is invasive and can lead to side effects and prolonged downtime. Fractional photothermolysis (FP) was introduced to overcome the limitations posed by conventional ablative lasers. To the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies to evaluate the use of Er:YAG in an ablative mode with a fractional handpiece for the treatment of rhinophyma.Aim of the Work: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional ablative 2940 nm Er:YAG laser for the treatment of mild to moderate rhinophyma.Patients and Methods: Sixteen patients having mild to moderate rhinophyma were treated with fractional ablative 2940 nm Er:YAG laser. All patients received 4 laser treatments and were followed up over the following 3 months. An additional follow-up appointment 6 months after the last session was arranged to detect any signs of recurrence.Outcome Measures: Patient questionnaire was used to evaluate patient subjective satisfaction. Objective evaluation was performed by a blind assessment of clinical photographs that were taken before and 3 months after the final treatment by two independent blinded evaluators.Results: Patient questionnaire taken 3 months after last treatment revealed that 8 patients (50%) were “very satisfied”, 4 patients (25%) were satisfied, and 4 patients (25%) were somewhat satisfied. None of the patients assessed their results as not satisfying.Conclusion: In conclusion, the use of patterned ablative Er:YAG laser with a PS01 handpiece and parameters used in this study comprise an effective tool for treatment of mild to moderate rhinophyma with rapid postoperative recovery compared with conventional surgical procedures and other ablative lasers.Keywords: rhinophyma, fractional lasers, ablative lasers, Er:YAG laser
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".