Table 1 Baseline information of light treatments to CALMs
From: Laser treatment for Cafe-au-lait Macules: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors | Study type | Lesions | Wave-length (nm) | Pulse duration | Sopt size (mm) | Fulence (J/cm2) | Session | Interval (week) | Follow-up (month) | Outcomes | Recurrence rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kilmer et al. [17] | Prospective | 7 | QS-532 | 10 ns | 2 | 2,3,4,5 | 1 | / | 3 | 14% improve > 75%, 57% improve \(\le\) 25% | / |
Cen et al. [7] | Randomized Clinical Trials | 41 | QS-532 | 5–40 ns | 5–6 | 1.5–2.5 | 1–3 | 12 | 24 | VAS = 2.63 ± 1.06 | 46.0% |
QS-755 | 70 ns | 3 | 6.0–8.0 | VAS = 2.84 ± 1.11 | |||||||
29 | PS-755 | 750 ps | 2 | 5.56–6.37 | VAS = 2.74 ± 1.05 | ||||||
Shimbashi et al. [21] | Prospective | 12 | QS-694 | 25 ns | / | 6 | 1–6 | 4–6 | 21 | 30% improve 51–75%, 16% improve 26–50%, 50% improve 0–25% | 0 |
Shimbashi and Kojima [22] | Prospective | 21 | 694 | 450 μs | / | 17.5–27.5 | 2 | 12 | 20 | 24% good, 57% fair, 14% poor, 5% aggravated | 64.7% |
Gu et al. [9] | Retrospective | 67 | Fractional QS-694 | / | 7.1 | 5.0–5.5 |  ≥ 1 | 3–4 | 35 | 100% improve ≥ 50% | 0 |
54 | IPL 560 | 3–4 ms | 15 × 35/ 15 × 8 | 13–15 |  ≥ 1 | 88% improve ≥ 50% | |||||
Wang et al. [24] | Prospective | 48 | QS-755 | 50–100 ns | 3 | 7–17 | 1–10 | 16–24 | 39 | 31% improve > 75%, 23% improve 51–75%, 29% improve 26–50%, 17% improve \(\le\) 25% | 19.2% |
Zhang et al. [25] | Prospective | 471 | QS-755 | 50–60 ns | 3 | 5–17 | 1–9 | 12–144 | / | 29% improve ≥ 75%, 26% improve 50–74%, 23% improve 25–49%, 20% improve < 25% | / |
Zhuang et al. [8] | Randomized Clinical Trials | 21 | QS-532 | / | 3 | 2.0–2.2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5% improve > 95%, 19% improve 75–95%, 33% improve 50–75%, 5% improve 25–50%, 5% improve < 25% | 16.7% |
19 | QS-1064 | 6 | 3.11–3.18 | 6 | 2 | 32% improve > 95%, 11% improve 75–95%, 26% improve 50–75%, 11% improve 25–50% | 0 | ||||
Kim et al. [19] | Prospective | 4 | QS-1064 | / | 7–7.5 | 2.4–2.5 | 12–24 | 2 | 24 | 25% nearly clean, 50% improve markedly, 25% improve moderately | 0 |
Lin et al. [10] | Retrospective | 52 | QS-1064 | / | 5 | 3.6–4.0 | 1–5 | 8 | 54 | 10% complete, 23% excellent, 29% good, 25% fair, 13% poor | 0 |
Baek et al. [15] | Prospective | 35 | QS-1064 | / | 7 | 2.2–2.4 | 20–50 | 1 | 12 | 69% improve > 95%, 26% improve 76–95%, 6% improve 51–75% | 0 |
Kung et al. [20] | Prospective | 2 | PS-532 | / | 3–6 | 0.36–0.87 | 3–5 | 2–6 | 3 | 50% improve 75–94%, 50% improve 50–74% | 0 |
Artzi et al. [11] | Retrospective Case Series | 16 | PS-532 | / | 4–5 | 0.8–1.6 | 1–4 | 4–8 | 9 | 31% improve > 95%, 25% improve 75–95%, 38% improve 50–75%, 6% improve < 25% | 13.3% |
Fitzpatrick et al. [16] | Prospective | 16 | 510 | 300 ns | 5 | 1–4 | 1–3 | 4 | 6 | 50% improve 100%, 13% improve 75%, 31% improve 50%, 6% improve 25% | 0 |
Somyos et al. [23] | Prospective | 16 | 511 | 20 ns | 0.3 | 7–22 | 1–4 | 2 | 22 | 56% improve 90–100%, 38% improve 70–89%, 6% improve < 50% | 0 |
Balaraman et al. [12] | Retrospective Case Series | 4 | 1550 | / | 15 | 6–70 mJ | 4–7 | 4–8 | / | 50% improved > 75%, 25% improved 50–75%, 25% improved < 25% | / |
Kim et al. [18] | Prospective | 6 | QS-1064 | / | 2.6 | 1–1.2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 66.7% improve > 95%, 16.7% improve 75–95%, 16.7% improve 50–75% | 16.7% |
6 | QS-532 | / | 7 | 2.6–3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 16.7% improve > 95%, 16.7% improve 75–95%, 33.4% improve 50–75%, 33.4% improve 25–50% | 33.4% | ||
Alster [14] | Prospective | 34 | 510 | 300 ns | 5 | 2.0–4.0 | 6–8 | 4–14 | 12 | Indistinguishable | 0 |
Belkin et al. [13] | Retrospective Case Series | 43 | QS-1064/ QS-755/ QS-532 | / | / | / | / | / | / | VAS = 2.86 | / |
4 | PS-755 | / | / | / | / | / | / |