Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Dye Laser, Intense Pulsed Light and Radiofrequency Therapy in the Treatment of Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea

Xueqin Chen,* Aiai Xia,* Yaoyin Li, Zhiqiang Song, Lan Ge Department of Dermatology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Lan Ge, Department of Dermatology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 30, Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, People’s Republic of China, Email [email protected]: Optoelectronic advances have boosted interest in noninvasive rosacea treatments. Among them, pulsed dye laser (PDL), intense pulsed light (IPL), and radiofrequency (RF) therapy have been used to treat erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), and some therapeutic effects have been reported, but comparative studies are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL, IPL, and RF therapy for the treatment of ETR.Patients and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted of patients with ETR who completed phototherapy between June 2019 and June 2024. The treatment protocol included two sessions of 585 nm PDL therapy (6-week interval), three sessions of IPL (M22 590 filter) therapy (590– 1200 nm, 4-week interval), or six sessions of multisource 3DEEP RF therapy (2-week interval), with a follow-up visit at 12 weeks post-final treatment. The clinical efficacy evaluation consisted of the Clinician Erythema Assessment (CEA) scale, patient self-assessment (PSA) scale, the overall efficacy rate, and the Rosacea-Specific Quality of Life instrument (RosaQoL). Safety was evaluated in terms of adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, blistering, hyperpigmentation, and scarring.Results: This study included 120 patients with ETR treated with PDL, M22 590, or RF therapy. Intragroup analysis revealed significant decreases in the CEA scale, PSA scale, and RosaQoL scores after treatment (p< 0.001). The efficacy rates were 57.50%, 45.00%, and 67.50% for PDL, M22 590, and RF therapy, respectively, and no statistically significant intergroup differences were observed. Safety analysis confirmed that all the treatments were well tolerated.Conclusion: PDL, IPL and RF therapy all produced short-term improvements in erythema and quality of life in patients with ETR. RF showed comparable efficacy with better tolerability, suggesting a comfortable, low downtime option, while PDL and IPL are vascular-targeted tools. These exploratory findings require confirmation in longer, dose-standardized prospective studies.Keywords: erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, radiofrequency, therapy