Observational analysis suggests laser therapy improves quality of life in patients with periorbital hyperpigmentation, highlighting subtype-specific effectiveness.
Aim: to assess the impact of laser therapy (neodymium, alexandrite lasers, and pulsed dye laser) on the quality of life of patients with periorbital hyperpigmentation using the Visual Quality of Life Scale. Material and Methods. The study included 95 patients with moderate periorbital hyperpigmentation (79 women and 16 men, mean age 39.2±8.8 years, median disease duration 32 [11;44] months). Patients were divided into two groups according to the predominant component of hyperpigmentation (pigmented/vascular), and each group was subdivided according to the treatment method (alexandrite laser, neodymium laser, neodymium laser + pulsed dye laser). The effectiveness was assessed using the Visual Quality of Life Scale (Table 1). Results. Both groups showed a significant improvement in quality of life indicators after treatment (p<0.001); the alexandrite laser demonstrated the highest efficacy in the pigmented subtype (p=0.005), while the combination of neodymium laser with pulsed dye laser was most effective in the vascular subtype (p<0.001). All methods were found to be safe and showed a high level of patient satisfaction with the therapy. The treatment led to a significant improvement in patients’ quality of life and a high degree of satisfaction with the results. Conclusion. The study demonstrated that the use of laser technologies is an effective and safe method for correcting periorbital hyperpigmentation. The choice of approach should be based on the predominant hyperpigmentation subtype: the alexandrite laser provides the best results in patients with the pigmented subtype, while the combination of neodymium laser and pulsed dye laser is most effective for the vascular subtype. The data obtained allow us to recommend an individualized approach to the selection of a correction method for periorbital hyperpigmentation, depending on the clinical features of the patient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Popova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: