Assessment of Effectiveness of Intense Pulse Light Versus Fractional co2 Laser in Treatment of Both Stages of Acne Vulgaris

Ahmed S. Kadah *

Dermatology and Venereology, Al-Hussin University Hospital, Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

Marwa Said

Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University (Cairo), Egypt.

Ahmed H. Nouh

Dermatology and Venereology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Egypt.

Maged Elsheikh

Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Military Medical Academy, Egypt.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Acne is an inflammatory and non-inflammatory disorder, associated with socialization and mental health problems that affects more than 80% of teenagers [1]. Acne is characterized by inflamed papules, and black and white comedons affecting the face, neck, back, and chest. in more severe cases cysts and scarring can also occur. Various treatment modalities have been introduced, however, Laser is still a more effective, convenient, and safer therapies, as other therapies have many adverse effects including poor efficacy, recurrence, high cost, irritation, bacterial resistance, and teratogenicity.

Aim: To study the treatment of different types of acne vulgaris by   fractional laser and intense pulsed light ( IPL) to assess the potential role of their curative effect

Methods:  sixty patients with both stages (inflammatory and non-inflammatory acne) involving their face were divided into 2 groups: Group -1: 30 patients with inflammatory acne received split face treatment 530 nm intense pulsed light ( IPL) in one side (subgroup-A) and fractional co2 on the other side (subgroup-B), Group-2: 30 patients with non-inflammatory acne received split face treatment 530 nm IPL in one side(subgroup-C) and fractional co2 on the other side(subgroup-D). Treatments once every 2 weeks. Assessments at baseline and after the fourth session by counting the lesions and usage of the global acne grading system.

Results: No statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between studied groups as regard age and sex. No statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) between the studied groups as regard acne duration. As regards the pre-session acne score, there was: No statistically significant difference (p1 = 0.285). After treatments, there was: Highly statistically significant difference (p3 < 0.001) between subgroup- A & subgroup- B. As regards the 6th session acne score, there was: Highly statistically significant difference (p1 < 0.001) between subgroup-C & subgroup-D. A highly statistically significant difference (p2 < 0.001).

Conclusion: The highly significant improvement in inflammatory lesions  among patients treated with IPL however, fractional co2 laser is considered a better therapeutic modality for non – inflammatory acne

Keywords: Fractional Co2 Laser, intense pulse light, acne Vulgaris

How to Cite

Kadah, A. S., Said, M., Nouh, A. H., & Elsheikh, M. (2022). Assessment of Effectiveness of Intense Pulse Light Versus Fractional co2 Laser in Treatment of Both Stages of Acne Vulgaris. Asian Journal of Research in Dermatological Science, 5(1), 121–129. Retrieved from


Costa CS. et al., Oral isotretinoin for acne. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 11:CD009435.

Ross EV. Optical treatments for acne. Dermatologic Therapy. 2005;18(3):253-266.

Saritha M. Use of Intense Pulse Light Technology for Various Dermatological Conditions on Indian Skin: A Descriptive study. Madras Medical College, Chennai; 2008.

Goodman GJ, Baron JA. Postacne scarring: A qualitative global scarring grading system. Dermatologic Surgery. 2006;32(12):1458-66.

Coenye T, Spittaels KJ, Achermann Y. The role of biofilm formation in the pathogenesis and antimicrobial susceptibility of Cutibacterium acnes. Biofilm. 2022;4:100063.

Zouboulis CC. Endocrinology, and immunology of acne: Two sides of the same coin. Exp Dermatol. 2020;29(9): 840-859.

Depypere M. et al., Recommendations for Systemic Antimicrobial Therapy in Fracture-Related Infection: A Consensus From an International Expert Group. J Orthop Trauma. 2020;34(1):30-41.

Mohamed EE, Tawfik K, Elsaie M. Intense Pulsed light Versus 1,064 Long-Pulsed Neodymium: Yttrium-Aluminum- Garnet Laser in the Treatment of Facial Acne Vulgaris. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(7): WC01-3.

Monib KME, Hussein MS, Nd: YAG laser vs IPL in inflammatory and noninflammatory acne lesion treatment. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019;19(9):2325-2332.

Yin R. et al. Combination ALA‐PDT and ablative fractional Er: YAG laser (2,940 nm) on the treatment of severe acne. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. 2014; 46(3):165-172.

Ballin JS, Uebelhoer NS. The use of the low-fluence 1064 nm Nd: YAG laser in a female with contraindications to systemic anti-acne therapy. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8(11):1025-6.

Ianosi S. et al., Investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized comparative study on the combined vacuum and intense pulsed light versus intense pulsed light devices in both comedonal and papulopustular acne. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013;15(5):248-54.

Barikbin B et al. Evaluation of Efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) System in the Treatment of Facial Acne Vulgaris:Comparision of Different Pulse Durations; A Pilot Study. Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 2013;2(2): 67-72.

Liu LH. et al., Randomized trial of three phototherapy methods for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Chinese patients. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30(5):246-53.

Reinholz M, Schwaiger H, Heppt MV, Poetschke J, Tietze J, Epple A, Ruzicka T, Kaudewitz P, Gauglitz GG. Comparison of two kinds of lasers in the treatment of acne scars. Facial Plastic Surgery. 2015;31(05): 523-31.

Amichai B, Shemer A, Grunwald MH. Low-dose isotretinoin in the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006; 54(4):644-6.