{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0297029702970297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018481848184818482, 'mean_word_length': 4.898832684824903, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized comparative study on combined vacuum and intense pulsed light versus intense pulsed light devices in both comedonal and papulopustular acne

Abstract Introduction: The aim was to compare the treatment effectiveness of intense pulsed light (IPL) and vacuum versus IPL with placebo for mild to moderate comedonal and inflammatory acne. Patients and methods: We randomized 180 patients with mild to moderate comedonal and inflammatory acne into three groups: Group A – 60 patients treated with vacuum and IPL, Group V – 60 patients treated with IPL, and Group 0 (control group) – 60 patients who received topical treatment with Sebium H2O Micellaire Solution. We evaluated the results using the Leeds revised acne-grading system and Cardiff Acne Disability Index. Results: There was a significant reduction in the number of papules, pustules, and comedones in Groups A and V compared with those in the control group (p < 0.001) with a more rapid decrease of the papules from Group A compared with that from Group V. We found an improvement in the clinical aspect (p < 0.001) when we compared Groups A and V with controls. Patients belonging to Group A were more satisfied compared with those belonging to Group V (p = 0.004) and significantly more satisfied compared with those belonging to Group 0 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, we consider that both the devices are efficient, the combination of vacuum and IPL representing a therapeutic option for the comedonal acne.